Comprehensive Conservation Plan Table of Contents

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge and Wetlqnd M anag ement D istrict Gomprehensive Gonseruat¡on Plan Approval

Submitted by:

t-zn-r0

Goncur:

Bichard D. Schultz Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ...... 1 Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge ...... 1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 3 The National Wildlife Refuge System ...... 3 Refuge Purposes ...... 3 Refuge Vision ...... 4 Purpose and Need for Plan ...... 4 Organization of the Plan ...... 4 History of Refuge Establishment and Management ...... 5 Legal Context ...... 5

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...... 6 Internal Agency Scoping ...... 6 Public Scoping ...... 6 Refuge Program Reviews ...... 7 Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ...... 7 Tamarac NWR ...... 7 Wildlife Management ...... 7 Habitat Management ...... 8 Visitor Services ...... 9 Facilities/Roads ...... 10 Tamarac WMD ...... 10 Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP ...... 11 Public Comments on the Draft CCP ...... 11

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment ...... 12 Introduction ...... 12 Other Units Administered ...... 12 Wilderness Area ...... 12 Wilderness Review ...... 12 Areas of Special Designation ...... 12 Ecological Context ...... 13 Historic Land Cover ...... 13 Minnesota Ecological Classification System ...... 14 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ...... 17 Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy ...... 17 Midwest Region Fish and Wildlife Conservation Priorities ...... 18 Landscape Connectivity and Corridors ...... 18 Other Conservation Lands in the Area of Tamarac NWR ...... 19 Social and Economic Context ...... 19 Area Economy ...... 19 Climate ...... 19

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan i

Geology and Glaciation ...... 19 Soils ...... 21 Hydrology and Topology ...... 22 Refuge Habitats ...... 24 Forest ...... 24 Wetlands ...... 26 Open Water ...... 26 Grassland ...... 26 Shrub ...... 26 Developed Land ...... 26 Refuge Wildlife ...... 26 Birds ...... 26 Mammals ...... 29 Fish ...... 30 Reptiles and Amphibians ...... 30 Invertebrates ...... 30 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 31 Refuge Resources of Concern ...... 31 Threats to Resources ...... 31 Invasive Species ...... 31 Earthworms ...... 33 White-tailed Deer ...... 33 Zebra Mussel ...... 33 Other Forest Pests and Pathogens ...... 34 Contaminants ...... 34 Climate Change and Tamarac NWR ...... 34 Midwest Climate Change Impacts ...... 35 Observed Climate Trends ...... 36 Scenarios of Future Climate ...... 36 Midwest Key Issues: ...... 36 1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels ...... 36 2. Agricultural Shifts ...... 37 3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ...... 37 Administrative Facilities ...... 38 Visitor Services ...... 38 Current Management ...... 38 Habitat Management ...... 38 Wetland Management ...... 39 Open Landscape Management ...... 40 The 1000-acre Tract ...... 41 Forest Openings ...... 42 Croplands ...... 42 Forest Management ...... 42 Habitat Restoration ...... 43 Fish and Wildlife Management and Monitoring ...... 44 Fish and Wildlife Management ...... 44 Fishery Management ...... 44 Wildlife Management ...... 44 Predator and Exotic Wildlife Management ...... 44 Fish and Wildlife Monitoring ...... 44

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan ii Studies and Investigations ...... 45 Water Quality ...... 45 Climate Change ...... 45 Pathways for Ecological Restoration of Native Plant Communities ...... 46 Survivability of Spotted Knapweed Biological Agents to a Spring Prescribed Fire ...... 46 Golden-winged Warbler Breeding Ecology ...... 46 Post-fledging Ecology of Ring-necked Ducks in Minnesota ...... 46 Disease Monitoring and Control ...... 47 West Nile Virus ...... 47 Avian Influenza (H5N1) ...... 47 Visitor Facilities ...... 47 Hunting ...... 47 Fishing ...... 47 Wildlife Observation ...... 50 Wildlife Photography ...... 50 Interpretation ...... 50 Environmental Education ...... 50 Outreach ...... 50 Volunteer Contributions ...... 51 Partnerships ...... 51 Interagency Coordination ...... 51 Tribal Activities ...... 52 Cooperating Organizations ...... 53 Archeology and Cultural Resources ...... 54 Law Enforcement ...... 55

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision ...... 56 Tamarac NWR Goals, Objectives and Strategies ...... 56 Tamarac NWR Goals ...... 57 Goal 1: Wildlife ...... 57 Goal 2: Habitat ...... 61 Goal 3: People ...... 72

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...... 82 New and Existing Projects ...... 82 Tamarac NWR Operating Needs and Visitor Facility Enhancement Projects ...... 82 Enhance Environmental Education and Interpretive Capacity and Capability ...... 82 Provide Public Safety, Security and Resource Protection Through  Increased Law Enforcement Capability ...... 83 Develop Strategic Forest Management Program ...... 83 Develop a New Audiovisual Program at Tamarac NWR Visitor Center ...... 83 Update Visitor Center Exhibits ...... 83 Hydrological Geomorphic (HGM) Assessment of Tamarac NWR Lakes and Rivers ...... 83 Aquatic Resources and Water Quality Investigation ...... 84 Climate Change Adaptations for Biodiversity Conservation at Tamarac NWR ...... 84 Wetland Management District Operating Needs Projects ...... 84 Enhance Wetland Management District ...... 84 Survey FSA Easements ...... 84 Future Staffing Requirements ...... 84

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan iii

Step-down Management Plans ...... 85 Partnership Opportunities ...... 85 Wilderness Review ...... 85 Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 85 Plan Review and Revision ...... 86

Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District ...... 87 Introduction and Background ...... 87 District Purposes ...... 87 District Vision ...... 87 Planning Background ...... 87 District Environment and Current Management ...... 87 District Environment ...... 87 Current Wetland Management District Programs: Where We Are Today ...... 90 Habitat Restoration and Management ...... 91 Wetlands ...... 91 Grasslands ...... 91 Forests ...... 91 Wetland Management District Public Recreation, Environmental Education, and Interpretation ...... 92 Wetland Management District Goals, Objectives and Strategies ...... 92 Future Management Direction: Where We Want To Go Tomorrow ...... 92 Goals, Objectives and Strategies ...... 92 Goal 1: Wildlife ...... 92 Goal 2: Habitat ...... 93 Goal 3: People ...... 96 Plan Implementation ...... 97

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact ...... 99 Appendix B Glossary ...... 103 Appendix C Species Lists ...... 105 Appendix D Refuge Species of Concern ...... 131 Appendix E Bibliography and References Cited ...... 139 Appendix F Compliance Requirements ...... 143 Appendix G Collier Agreement ...... 149 Appendix H Compatibility Determinations ...... 155 Appendix I Appropriate Use ...... 197 Appendix J List of Preparers ...... 211

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan iv List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Location of Tamarac NWR ...... 2 Figure 2 Areas of Special Designation, Tamarac NWR ...... 13 Figure 3 Ecoregion of Tamarac NWR ...... 14 Figure 4 Vegetation of Tamarac NWR and Surrounding Landscape Prior to European Settlement ...... 15 Figure 5 Tamarac NWR in Relation to Major Provinces of Minnesota ...... 16 Figure 6 Tamarac NWR in Relation to Sections and Subsections of the  Ecological Classification System of Minnesota ...... 17 Figure 7 Bird Conservation Regions Related to Tamarac NWR ...... 18 Figure 8 Conservation Lands in the Vicinity of Tamarac NWR ...... 20 Figure 9 Location of Tamarac NWR in Relation to Major Watersheds of North-central Minnesota ...... 23 Figure 10 Current Land Cover, Tamarac NWR ...... 25 Figure 11 Tamarac NWR Habitat ...... 26 Figure 12 Current Visitor Services Facilities – Fall and Winter ...... 48 Figure 13 Current Visitor Services Facilities – Spring and Summer ...... 49 Figure 14 Future Land Cover Goals, Tamarac NWR ...... 63 Figure 15 Hunting Areas on Tamarac NWR ...... 74 Figure 16 Future Visitor Services Facilities –Spring and Summer, Tamarac NWR ...... 78 Figure 17 Future Visitor Services Facilities – Fall and Winter, Tamarac NWR ...... 79 Figure 18 Current Staffing Chart (2010), Tamarac NWR and WMD ...... 85 Figure 19 Location of Tamarac WMD in Relation to Other FWS Lands ...... 88 Figure 20 Overview of Wetland Management Districts in Minnesota ...... 89

Table 1 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Becker County, Minnesota ...... 21 Table 2 Summary of Area Economy, 2005, Tamarac NWR ...... 22 Table 3 Distinct Classes of Soils Within Tamarac NWR Based Upon Moisture Capacity and Texture ...... 22 Table 4 Vegetative Cover Types of Tamarac NWR Based on 2005 Aerial Photography Interpretation ...... 27 Table 5 Proposed Changes in Vegetation Cover Types, Tamarac NWR ...... 62 Table 6 New Staff Required to Fully Implement the CCP by 2025, Tamarac NWR and WMD ...... 85 Table 7 Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Tamarac NWR ...... 86

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan v Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge (Tamarac NWR), encompassing nearly 43,000 acres, is located in Becker County, 18 miles northeast of Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, (pop. 7,400) and 60 miles east of Fargo, North Dakota (Figure 1 on page 2). Tama- rac NWR lies in the glacial lake country of northwestern Minnesota, in the heart of one of the most diverse transition zones in North America. Here eastern deciduous hardwoods, northern coniferous forests and western tall grass prairie converge, creating a rich assemblage of both plants and animals. The landscape is characterized by rolling forested hills interspersed with shallow lakes, rivers, A bird’s eye view of Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: D. Brand marshes and shrub swamps. Sixty percent of the refuge is forested with aspen, jack pine, red pine, Today, the north half of Tamarac NWR lies within balsam fir, paper birch, red and white oak, sugar the original White Earth Indian Reservation estab- maple and basswood tree types. Large and small lished in 1867. wetland complexes comprise about 35 percent of the Refuge. Many refuge lakes and rivers contain large Between 1890 and 1930, the Refuge’s original native wild rice beds that produce abundant food for stands of red and white pine were logged. Cata- waterfowl and other wetland dependent species. strophic fires occurred during this time period due Twenty-eight lakes lie within the Refuge and three to extensive slash piles that were left behind after rivers flow through the Refuge, while marshes and the logging. Several dams and ditches were also cre- wooded potholes number several thousand. The ated by loggers, to transport logs down river to the remaining 5 percent of Tamarac NWR is grassland, mill. Settlers followed the loggers, but farming mostly remnants of early settler clearings or small never achieved much prominence due to the dense farms. forest, marginal soils and numerous wetlands. Tamarac NWR wildlife is as varied as the habitat Though the landscape has been altered by the with more than 258 species of birds and 50 species of influences of human history and past management, mammals. Bald Eagles are common with up to 23 the Refuge remains largely intact with a functioning territories producing as many as 33 young in recent ecosystem and retains an untamed character for years. Resident bear and gray wolves are seen peri- current visitors to enjoy, use and respect. With the odically. encroachment of development surrounding the Ref- uge, the promotion of sound land stewardship prac- The Refuge was historically and remains a prized tices will be key in remaining connected in the hunting, fishing, ricing and maple sugaring area for landscape. a succession of Native American people. The Dakota/Lakota inhabited the area until the 18th The Refuge is also responsible for a five-county century when they were displaced by the Annis- region known as the Tamarac Wetland Manage- hanabe or “Chippewa.” These native people knew ment District (Tamarac WMD). Established in 1987, the value of the lush beds of manoomin (wild rice), Tamarac WMD stretches over 10,600 square miles stands of sugar maple and abundance of wild foods, in Beltrami, Cass, Clearwater, Hubbard and Kooch- fish and game the land provided for their people.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Figure 1: Location of Tamarac NWR

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 2 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

iching Counties, extending the Refuge’s sphere of education programs. Nationwide, approximately 30 responsibility to the Canadian border. District activ- million people visited national wildlife refuges in ities, including an active Partners for Fish and Wild- 2004. life program, complement Refuge goals to ensure a landscape perspective for conservation delivery. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improve- ment Act of 1997 established several important mandates aimed at making the management of The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The prepa- Tamarac NWR and WMD are administered by ration of Comprehensive Conservation Plans the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The (CCPs) is one of those mandates. The legislation Service is the primary federal agency responsible directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habi- and purposes of the individual refuges are carried tats. It oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the laws, management and protection of migratory bird biological integrity, diversity, and environmental populations, restoration of nationally significant health of the National Wildlife Refuge System. fisheries, administration of the Endangered Species The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat. The Ser- are to: vice also manages the National Wildlife Refuge Sys- tem.  Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that are The National Wildlife Refuge System endangered or threatened with becoming Refuge lands are part of the National Wildlife endangered. Refuge System, which was founded in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican  Develop and maintain a network of habitats for Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans. migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdic- Today, the system is a network of 547 refuges and tional fish, and marine mammal populations wetland management districts covering nearly 95 that is strategically distributed and carefully million acres of public lands and waters. Most of managed to meet important life history needs of these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approxi- these species across their ranges. mately 16 million acres located in the lower 48 states  Conserve those ecosystems, plant communi- and several island territories. ties, wetlands of national or international signif- The National Wildlife Refuge System is the icance, and landscapes and seascapes that are world’s largest collection of lands specifically man- unique, rare, declining, or underrepresented in aged for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat existing protection efforts. for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish,  Provide and enhance opportunities to partici- amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of international treaties for migratory bird conserva- pate in compatible wildlife-dependent recre- tion and other legislation, such as the Migratory ation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have photography, and environmental education and been established to protect migratory waterfowl interpretation). and their migratory flyways.  Foster understanding and instill appreciation Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving of the diversity and interconnectedness of fish, endangered and threatened species. Among the wildlife, and plants and their habitats. most notable is Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, which provides winter habitat for the highly Refuge Purposes endangered Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther Refuge protects one of the nation’s most Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was estab- endangered predators. Refuges also provide unique lished in 1938… recreational and educational opportunities for peo-  “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migra- ple. When human activities are compatible with tory birds and other wildlife: ...” Executive wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938. where people can enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,  “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any photography, and environmental education and other management purpose, for migratory interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conser- wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental vation Act)

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Refuge Vision The planning team considered the past vision statements and emerging issues and drafted the following vision statement as the desired future state for the Refuge: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge is trea- sured as an ecologically and culturally rich landscape of rolling forested hills interspersed with shallow lakes, rivers and marshes that nurtures a unique and diverse assemblage of plants and animals. Towering red and white pine intermin- gle with aspens, majestic old growth forests, jack pine barrens and tamarack-spruce bogs. In the land where food grows on water, bountiful wild rice provides for future generations of wildlife and native people. From the vibrant emer- gence of spring woodland wildflowers to the rich colors of autumn to the quiet hush of winter, people come to revitalize their spirit and connect with a rich wildlife heritage. Tamarac NWR will remain resilient to human influences and provide an unbroken landscape of native plant communities to support healthy and productive native fish and wildlife populations. A lone canoe. Photo Credit: Heather Lehmann Callaway Purpose and Need for Plan

This CCP articulates the management direction  Providing a clear statement of direction for the for Tamarac NWR and District for the next 15 future management of the Refuge. years. Through the development of goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP describes how the  Making a strong connection between Refuge Refuge and district also contribute to the overall activities and conservation activities that occur mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. in the surrounding area. Several legislative mandates within the National  Providing Refuge neighbors, users, and the Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 general public with an understanding of the have guided the development of this plan. These Service’s land acquisition and management mandates include: actions on and around the refuge.  Wildlife has first priority in the management of  Ensuring the Refuge actions and programs are refuges. consistent with the mandates of the National  Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, namely Wildlife Refuge System. hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife  Ensuring that Refuge management considers photography, environmental education and federal, state, county and tribal plans. interpretation are priority public uses of ref-  Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge uges. We will facilitate these activities when management. they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill the refuge’s purpose or the mission of the ref-  Providing a basis for the development of budget uge system. requests on the Refuge’s operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.  Other uses of refuges will only be allowed when determined appropriate and compatible with refuge purposes and mission of the refuge sys- Organization of the Plan tem. The purpose of the CCP is to specify manage- This CCP will guide the management of Tamarac ment directions for Tamarac NWR and the Wetland NWR by: Management District over the coming 15 years. These management directions will be described in detail through two distinct sets of goals, objectives,

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 4 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

and strategies; one each for the Refuge and District. Tamarac NWR was established by Executive The Tamarac WMD is managed by the staff of the Order No. 7902 on May 31, 1938 by Franklin D. Refuge. For that reason, some of the written mate- Roosevelt to serve as a “breeding ground and sanc- rial for the Refuge and District is integrated tuary for migratory birds and other wildlife”. The throughout the CCP. However, Chapter 6 was cre- Refuge was originally known as the Tamarac Migra- ated to serve as a separate location for the goals, tory Waterfowl Refuge, thus emphasizing the objectives and strategies for the Tamarac WMD. importance of the area to waterfowl. The name was subsequently changed in July 1940 to Tamarac History of Refuge Establishment and National Wildlife Refuge, as was the case with many other federal wildlife lands. The Migratory Bird Management Conservation Act of 1929, also known as the Duck The initial land acquisition for Tamarac NWR Stamp, further solidified the Refuge’s purpose. was the result of concern for limited waterfowl Although the Refuge’s original focus was on water- breeding grounds. During the 1930s, waterfowl pop- fowl (ducks and geese), other migratory birds (for- ulations plummeted due to drought, farming prac- est passerines and raptors) and year-round resident tices and wetland drainage, which reduced the wildlife (wolves and deer) have received an increas- amount of lands suitable for breeding, brood rearing ing emphasis in Refuge management over the years. and staging during migration. In response to these Following establishment in 1938, the north half of concerns, the Bureau of Biological Survey (now the the Refuge was acquired almost instantly through U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service), began the National purchases by the Migratory Bird Conservation Waterfowl Restoration Program in June 1934 to Commission from willing sellers and of county tax search for lands suitable for restoration practices forfeited lands. Much land in the south half was that would benefit waterfowl habitat needs. owned by influential hunting clubs. Their opposition The Refuge area was first recommended to Pres- to the Refuge delayed complete acquisition in the ident Roosevelt’s Waterfowl Restoration Commit- south half until the early 1960s. Land exchanges tee, of which publisher Thomas Beck was chairman with the State completed acquisition of the present and Jay N. Darling and Aldo Leopold, members. boundaries in 1968. The committee, in turn, recommended investigation Early Refuge development was started by a by the Bureau of Biological Survey, and studies dur- Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) camp in the ing the summers of 1934 and 1935 indicated that 1930's and further enhanced in the 1960s by the Becker and Mahnomen Counties had the highest Army Corp of Engineers Job Corps Conservation waterfowl nesting indices in the state of Minnesota. Center. These efforts included the construction of The Biological Survey viewed this area as a link in dikes, trails, water control structures and a number the series of migratory waterfowl refuges being of refuge buildings. Many of these structures and established in the Mississippi Flyway. The Egg buildings are still in use today and the trails are the Lake region, as this area was known, provided ade- foundation for refuge access. quate food and dependable water supply, which was rare during the Dust Bowl era. A suitable area for acquisition was laid out in consultation with wildlife Legal Context officials of the Minnesota Conservation Department In addition to the executive order establishing (now the Minnesota Department of Natural the Refuge, and the National Wildlife Refuge Sys- Resources) and local citizens. The proposed refuge tem Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws, boundary was readily approved by the Becker executive orders, and regulations govern adminis- County Commissioners. Negotiations got under way tration of Tamarac NWR and WMD. Appendix F to acquire these lands, which were owned by a vari- contains a partial list of the legal mandates that ety of entities including private non-tribal individu- guided the preparation of this plan and those that als, county tax forfeited lands and Bureau of Indian pertain to Refuge management. Affairs. The Collier Agreement of 1935 (Appendix G) was an agreement between the Bureau of Biolog- ical Survey and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to establish Tamarac NWR while providing that Native Americans retained certain ricing and trapping privileges within the Refuge. Approximately, the northern half of the Refuge lies within the original boundary of the White Earth Reservation, which was established in 1867.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5 Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

The Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD CCP has been written with input and assistance from citizens, universities and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and staff from other federal, state and local agencies. The participation of these stakeholders is important, and all of their ideas have been valuable in determining the future direction of the Refuge. Refuge and Service planning staff are grateful to all of those who have contributed time, expertise, and ideas throughout the CCP process. We appreciate the enthusiasm and commitment expressed by many for the lands and living resources administered by the Tamarac NWR. Internal Agency Scoping The CCP process began in late February 2007 Skiing at Tamarac NWR. Photo credit: D. Mudderman with a kick-off meeting between Refuge staff and regional planners from the Service’s office at Fort Snelling, Minnesota. The participants in this “inter- ten comments during a public scoping period and nal scoping” exercise discussed a vision statement, personal contacts. goals, existing baseline resource data, planning doc- Initial public scoping for the Tamarac NWR and uments and other pertinent information. In addi- WMD CCP began in July 2007 with a series of open tion, the group identified a preliminary list of issues, house events held in Detroit Lakes and at the Ref- concerns and opportunities facing the Refuge and uge Headquarters (Tamarac NWR) and in Bagley, Tamarac WMD that would need to be addressed in Minnesota (WMD). Turn-out was light at all events the CCP. despite widespread notification in area newspapers A list of required CCP elements (e.g., maps, pho- and local television. Comment forms were available tos, and GIS data layers) was also developed at this at the events and made available at the Refuge meeting and during subsequent e-mail and tele- Headquarters and Visitor Center during the follow- phone communications between Refuge staff and ing weeks. the Service’s office in the Twin Cities. Concurrently, People interested in making written comments the group studied federal and state mandates plus had until September 2007 to submit them. Com- applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans ments could be sent by U.S. mail, e-mail, or via the for their relevance to this planning effort. Finally, Tamarac NWR planning website on the Internet. the group agreed to a process and sequence for The Planning Team received eight written comment obtaining public input and a tentative schedule for forms and several e-mail messages during public completion of the CCP. A Public Involvement Plan scoping and took numerous pages of notes from was drafted and distributed to participants immedi- internal group discussions and conversations with ately after the meeting. individuals representing government agencies, NGOs and Refuge users. Public Scoping Public input was encouraged and obtained using several methods, including open house events, writ-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 6 Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Refuge Program Reviews of waterfowl management will dictate some habitat management decisions. On April 25-26 and November 14-16, 2006, a Bio- logical Program Review was held to obtain detailed  Establish Population Objectives For Eastern input on the issues and opportunities concerning the Gray Wolves, Bald Eagles and Trumpeter habitat and biological monitoring program at the Swans Refuge. Thirty people representing the Minnesota Eastern gray wolves are federally listed as DNR, the U.S. Geological Survey – Biological threatened in Minnesota under the Endangered Resource Division, universities, NGOs, Refuge staff, Species Act. The Bald Eagle has been delisted volunteers and the Tamarac Interpretive Associa- from the Endangered Species Act but is pro- tion attended these discussions. On July 17-18, 2006, tected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection a Visitor Services Review was conducted by the Act and revisions (1994). The Trumpeter Swan Regional Office. Regional Landscape Architect is a Conservation Priority Species in Region 3 Richard Sorenson, Fergus Falls Prairie Wetlands and considered by the state of Minnesota to be Center Visitor Services Specialist Ken Garrahan, threatened. The Refuge has a legal responsibil- and Tamarac NWR staff participated in the reveiw. ity to monitor the status of these species. Addi- This program review was scheduled to coincide with tionally, given the history of reintroduction of the CCP scoping process and to help formulate the Trumpeter Swans at Tamarac NWR and objectives and strategies in the plan. recovery from the brink of extinct of the Bald Eagle, there is tremendous visitor interest in Summary of Issues, Concerns and these majestic bird species. Opportunities  Stocking Fish Where Appropriate and Not in Conflict with Refuge Purposes The following list of issue topics was generated by internal Refuge scoping, the public open house Tamarac NWR is managed primarily for water- sessions and program reviews. Each topic will be fowl, which means that lake levels are managed described in more detail in the following chapters of with the goal of producing aquatic vegetation this plan. and invertebrates for ducks. There is interest in to developing more fishing opportunities by Tamarac NWR stocking fish in Refuge lakes. Some of these include lakes where certain fish species did not Wildlife Management naturally occur.  Waterfowl Focus Shift to Natural Diversity  High White-tailed Deer Population is Damag- with Emphasis on Service Resource Conserva- ing Refuge Habitats tion Priority Species The recent high Refuge deer population has When Tamarac NWR was established in 1938, limited conifer regeneration by over browsing. the tail end of the Dirty Thirties, much of the Insects, amphibians, mammals and some migra- land had been cleared, prairies were dry, forests tory songbird populations can also be negatively were less dense, and lakes were shallower. The impacted. The Refuge needs to establish a sus- Refuge’s original master plan emphasized get- tainable deer population objective that balances ting water on the land and focusing on the pro- habitat concerns, hunting opportunities and duction of Wood Ducks, Ring-necked Ducks, eastern gray wolf population objectives. Deer Blue-winged Teal, Mallards, and Canada Geese. are a major prey species for the resident wolf The landscape has changed since the 1930s, packs. Utilize state and tribal deer hunting both in terms of the environment and Service framework/strategies to achieve this goal policy. By expanding Tamarac NWR’s original specific focus on waterfowl to natural diversity  Managing Invasive Wildlife Species of wildlife native to Minnesota, with an empha- Earth worms are an invasive species present on sis on Conservation Priority Species in Region the Refuge. Carp have not yet entered Refuge 3, Tamarac NWR demonstrates a more holistic waters, but are only held in check by a water view of wildlife. This view continues to imple- control structure. Zebra mussels have recently ment the broad mission of the National Wildlife infested a lake within the Refuge’s watershed. Refuge System to conserve America’s wildlife The Refuge needs to better understand what and enhance biodiversity, as well contribute to impacts exotic earth worms are having on habi- wildlife conservation at an appropriate regional tat and explore ways to ensure that carp, zebra scale by trying to assist those species in great- mussels, and other invasive species do not infil- est need of attention. Identifying the direction trate the Refuge.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7 Chapter 2: The Planning Process

 Managing Beaver to Minimize Infrastructure viability of a wild rice-dominated lake. Wild rice Damage systems require water level fluctuations from year to year to insure a sustainable system. Beaver are very effective in blocking water flows, including through Refuge water control  Water Quality Monitoring Needs infrastructure. Beaver activity increases the A 2005 lake assessment by the Minnesota Pollu- costs of maintaining Refuge water control tion Control Agency indicated that North Tama- structures and road culverts. To date, beaver rac Lake could possibly be listed as an Impaired control has been primarily addressed by tribal Water due to high levels of phosphorus. recreational trapping, and to a lesser degree, removal by contract, permit, and Refuge staff. The Refuge needs to develop a comprehensive These efforts have been ineffectual in control- water quality monitoring program to establish a ling the growth of Refuge beaver populations. baseline for Refuge waters (not just North Tam- An expansion of the Refuge’s trapping program arac Lake). Work with MPCA to determine the may help reduce the beaver population, how- parameters, sites, timing, laboratory use, long ever, fluctuating` fur markets dictate interest term objectives, etc., for this effort. and other alternatives need exploration.  Managing Invasive Plant Species  Invertebrate Numbers and Health Exotic and invasive plant species pose a threat Invertebrates are a critical food resource for to the maintenance and restoration of the Ref- waterfowl, particularly during migration, egg uge’s diverse habitats. Canada thistle, plume- laying, and brood rearing. An initial investiga- less thistle, purple loosestrife, leafy spurge and tive survey on Pine Lake suggested a general spotted knapweed and several other invasive lack of aquatic invertebrates in the lake. The terrestrial plants are known to occur on the study underscores the need for more informa- Refuge. The Refuge currently uses chemical, tion regarding the abundance and diversity of mechanical and biological methods of control- Refuge invertebrate populations. Water quality ling invasive plant species. monitoring may provide some answers to this Although Tamarac NWR believes, from general concern. observation, the water bodies of the Refuge are Habitat Management fairly clear of aquatic invasive plants, the potential for infestation is high due to the large num-  Manage Water Levels to Promote Wild Rice ber of boating visitors. Production, Enhance Tribal Harvest Opportu- More invasive plant species, both terrestrial nities and Minimize Downstream Impacts and aquatic, are predicted to spread to the area. Refuge waters have a long history of wild rice The Refuge needs to establish an invasive spe- production and use by wildlife, particularly cies monitoring program. Closer coordination waterfowl, and Native American people. The with county weed task forces would help with basic purpose of water level management has the early detection monitoring, preventative been to enhance the area’s natural ability to measures development and removal strate- grow wild rice, and the other vegetation and gies. Outreach with neighboring lake associa- associated invertebrates established within the tions has been requested. aquatic ecosystem.  Forest Management The Refuge has added stoplogs in August to Forest habitat within the transitional zone was enhance tribal rice harvesting opportunities in once characterized by upland conifer, upland the past. This action was thought to have deciduous, mixed upland, lowland conifer, mixed benign consequences for all parties involved, lowland forest, and lowland deciduous commu- however the downstream lake shore owners nities. These communities have been altered complained of lowered water levels on Height of over the past 200 years by logging, agriculture Land Lake. The resulting low water caused and development. This has created grassland boat launching and docking problems and posed and forest openings that are costly to maintain safety concerns for boaters and skiers that and do not fully emulate a natural system of could potentially hit submerged dead head logs, succession. now closer to the surface. The water management program needs to address this issue.  Establishing Habitat Corridors With Other Additionally, there has been a request to maxi- Conservation Lands mize rice production on a yearly basis. How- Tamarac NWR is located near federal, state, ever, recent research indicates that stable water tribal and county lands. Connectivity between levels will, over time, jeopardize the long-term

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 8 Chapter 2: The Planning Process

the Refuge and other conservation units could  Bank Fishing Access Regulations Are Unclear benefit wildlife and habitats. Bank fishing restrictions are unclear for the vis- Visitor Services iting public.  Inadequate Parking Facilities  Expanded Hunting Opportunities Inadequate parking areas raises safety con- The Minnesota Department of Natural cerns and does not invite use. Resources has asked Tamarac NWR to consider opening bear and turkey hunting seasons.  Hunters with Disabilities Limited by Lack of Accessible Facilities  Additional Public Use Activities Requested Hunters with disabilities are limited to hunting Visitors have expressed interest in uses not cur- on roads that are already open to vehicles. rently allowed or expanding some that are lim- There is interest in the Refuge providing more ited. access.  Leaving ice houses overnight is currently  Tribal and State Hunting Season Conflicts prohibited in accordance with federal regula- On the north half of the Refuge, the tribal sea- tions. sons overlap with state seasons. The season for  Motorized vehicles are not allowed on frozen tribal primitive deer hunting overlaps with the lakes. This activity has been requested to state small game season, creating quality hunt access ice fishing locations. conflicts for tribal members and safety issues for small game hunters. The tribal rifle season  Horseback riding is currently allowed on overlaps with state archery season, creating county and township roads, auto tour route quality hunt conflicts for hunters and possible and Bruce Blvd. Increased spread of invasive safety concerns. Additionally, many non-tribal plants through horseback riding activities on hunters scout out locations for deer hunting the Refuge is a threat to the maintenance and during the state grouse season and are not restoration of the Refuge’s diverse habitats. wearing the required blaze orange, which cre-  The North Country National Scenic Trail is a ates safety concerns. All hunters should be aware of the different hunting seasons on the footpath proposed to route through the Ref- Refuge and use safe hunting practices. The uge in the public use area south of County Refuge needs to insure visitors are informed. Hwy 26.  Native American Cultural Practices  Canoeing and tubing on the Ottertail River is currently not allowed through the Refuge due The site of Tamarac NWR has a long, rich history of Native American Indian cultural tradi- to its location within the sanctuary area and tions. The Refuge remains an important site for disturbance to wildlife. traditional practices of the local Ojibwe tribe.  Fishing with Motorboats Wild rice is harvested by tribal members in con- In some cases, motorboat use interferes with cert with the rice abundance. Access to ricing Refuge visitors engaged in wildlife observa- lakes is balanced with wildlife management tion. There is concern that boat trailering and activities. Other activities such as plant collec- motorized fishing activity is not compatible with tion and harvesting leeches have potential con- other uses along the Refuge’s auto tour route. flicts with wildlife management objectives. There are opportunities for incorporating tradi-  More Demand for Environmental Education tional Ojibwe practices into the Refuge’s inter- Programming pretive programs, events and signage. Tamarac NWR’s environmental education pro-  Lake Access Regulations are Confusing gram is growing and lacks the facilities and staffing to meet demand for environmental edu- The regulations related to lake access are con- cation programming. School groups, home fusing. One Refuge lake is open only for the school groups, colleges and others have winter , some are open only during the summer, expressed interest in Refuge-based environ- some are open both winter and summer. Some mental education opportunities. lakes are open to fishing but not to other uses. In some instances, roads provide vehicle access  Division of Outreach Workload Among FWS to a boat landing, but walking on that road is Offices prohibited. This complexity makes it difficult Agassiz NWR, Glacial Ridge NWR, Rydell for the visiting public to follow the Refuge’s reg- NWR, Hamden Slough NWR, Detroit Lakes ulations. Wetland Management District and Fergus Falls

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9 Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Wetland Management District are all less than a Tamarac WMD 2 hour drive of Tamarac NWR. There are many  Land Acquisition benefits to having other stations nearby, however this proximity also makes it confusing for Thousands of wetlands dot the District land- Refuge staff to divide up the outreach workload scape, yet as of 2010, no fee-title lands have and articulate the differing Refuge purposes to been acquired or additional easements procured the public. Because the refuges are so close and within the five-county Wetland Management there is potential for audiences to overlap, there District. Private lands work is a valuable com- are opportunities for outreach efforts to have a ponent of habitat restoration and protection, broader perspective and impact. however, perpetual protection, whether through the Service or other agency programs, assures Facilities/Roads long-term conservation benefits for wildlife and  Volunteer/Intern Housing Needed wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. The Refuge needs to provide housing for volun-  Partnerships teers and interns who come to do extended proj- Partnerships are an essential part of accom- ects. The nearest community with available plishing the goals of the Tamarac WMD. Part- hou sing is a long drive away from the Refuge, nerships allow the Service to reach beyond making it unfeasible to house people off-site. A social and political boundaries to achieve spe- bunkhouse would be suitable for students; Rec- cific objectives and, through involvement of reation Vehicle pads would be useful for volun- individuals and organizations, inspire future teer Refuge hosts working on the Refuge. generations to care about conservation. Devel-  Potential to Demonstrate Green Facilities oping partnerships requires a commitment of Federal buildings, particularly U.S. Fish and people and funding. Wildlife Service facilities, can play an important role  Direction of the WMD in demonstrating practical and efficient “green” District activities have been primarily building technologies. There are opportunities on restricted to private land wetland restoration Tamarac NWR to demonstrate these technologies. and easement enforcement. Many opportunities  Speeding Creates Safety, Wildlife Mortality exist to broaden habitat restoration efforts. and Maintenance Problems The role the District can play at addressing the needs of migratory birds, Conservations Prior- Vehicle speed on all public roads needs to be kept ity Species and critical habitats across the land- to a minimum to improve visitor safety and to scape needs to be determined. A commitment of reduce dust, wildlife mortality, and long-term main- staff and funding is critical to achieving this tenance costs. Many of these public roads are goal. administered by the county and townships. Tama- rac NWR needs to continue to work with these local  Easement Management Planning and Imple- governmental agencies responsible for speed limits mentation to insure safety and to maintain the character of a Over 35 FmHA inventory property tracts were National Wildlife Refuge. transferred to the District in the mid-1990s. Many of these tracts possess undeveloped, out-  ATV and Snowmobile Uses dated, or unfulfilled management plans, but County ordinances allow the operation of an could yield significant ecological benefits to the ATV or snowmobile in the right-of-way of landscape. Service resources need to be allo- county roads. Local ATV and snowmobile cated to develop and carry out up-to-date habi- enthusiasts have respected Tamarac’s interest tat management plans on these Refuge System in prohibiting this activity, particularly in light lands. of the numerous trails available around the Ref-  Invasive Plants uge. Additionally, most road right-of-ways within the Refuge include either steep or unde- Invasive plants are considered one of the great- veloped ditches which are unsafe to operators, est threats to natural ecosystems. Within the thus limiting the potential activity. Tamarac District, the Service is working with private NWR plans to coordinate with the County to landowners and partners to control existing and restrict this activity within the boundary of the prevent additional spread of invasive species. Refuge in order to maintain the character of a  Education and Outreach National Wildlife Refuge, prevent habitat destruction and avoid law enforcement issues, Opportunities exist for the Service to develop such as trespass or illegal operation. education and outreach tools for the Tamarac WMD that will promote private lands conserva-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 10 Chapter 2: The Planning Process

tion and demonstrate wildlife conservation tech- the Refuge received on the CCP. We were able to niques. incorporate their suggestions concerning invasive species, habitat cover types and land ownership Preparation, Publishing, Finalization maps. However, the CCP planning team has decided not to revisit the subject of watercraft use on the and Implementation of the CCP Otter Tail River through the sanctuary portion of The Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD CCP the Refuge. In 2009, the DNR completed the Otter was prepared by the staff of Tamarac NWR, the Tail River Water Trail Master Plan and agreed that USFWS Regional Office and a representative of the watercraft use was not appropriate for this stretch Minnesota DNR. The CCP was published in two of the river. Refuge staff have determined that the phases and in accordance with the National Envi- area is vital to waterfowl breeding, brood rearing ronmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA presented a and staging. The stretch of river immediately south range of alternatives for future management and of the Refuge in the DNR’s Hubbel Pond Wildlife identified the preferred alternative. A public review Management Area is closed to watercraft use for period of at least 30 days, which included a public the same reasons. In addition, heavy vegetation and meeting, followed the release of the draft plan. low water flows make this stretch nearly impassible in many locations. The alternative that was selected has become the basis of the Final CCP. This document then, becomes the basis for guiding management on the Refuge and its management district over the coming 15-year period. It will guide the development of more detailed step-down management plans for specific resource areas; it will underpin the annual bud- geting process through Service-wide allocation databases. Most importantly, it lays out the general approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and people at the Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD that will direct day-to-day decision-making and actions. Public Comments on the Draft CCP The Draft CCP/EA was officially released for public review on July 7, 2010; the 31-day comment period ended on August 6, 2010. Planning information was sent to approximately 220 individuals and organizations for review and announced through local media outlets, resulting in six comment sub- missions. During the comment period the Refuge hosted an open house to receive public comments on the Draft CCP and met with members of the Tama- rac Interpretive Association in a separate event. Thirteen individuals attended the open house event and 16 people attended the TIA discussion. Because few changes to the preferred alternative were recommended by Refuge audiences during the public review period, only minor changes were made to the Final CCP and the EA. All respondents who expressed an opinion endorsed the selection of Alternative 1 and the general approach of the proposed future management of the Refuge. We were able to incorporate nearly all of the specific changes suggested in the written comments. Consequently, we did not produce a formal Response to Comments Appendix for this CCP. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources provided the most extensive comments

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Introduction Tamarac NWR encompasses 42,738 acres of land and waters in the glacial lake area of northwestern Minnesota. The Refuge is located in Becker County, 18 miles northeast of Detroit Lakes, in the heart of one of the most diverse ecological transition zones in North America, where northern hardwood forests, coniferous forest and tall grass prairie converge. Between 10,000 and 10,500 years ago, receding gla- ciers left behind the rolling ridges and deep depressions that became a woodland area complemented by lakes, rivers, bogs and marshes and is now Tama- rac NWR. The primary ecological drivers influencing the plant and wildlife populations of the Refuge are the climate, hydrology, and natural disturbances Frog. Photo Credit: Michele Gedgaud such as fire, disease and wind events.

Other Units Administered and after the Refuge’s establishment, particularly from agriculture, timber harvest, roads, and water Wilderness Area control. Although Tamarac NWR cannot be The Tamarac Wilderness Area (Figure 2 on page described as pristine, it is largely an intact, health 13) was established by law in 1976. The Wilderness and functioning ecosystem that just does not meet Area is managed under the provisions of the 1964 the strict definition of suitable lands. Wilderness Act as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. That is, it is “an area where Areas of Special Designation the earth and its community of life are untrammeled The Research Natural Areas were designated in by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not 1972 with some general management and protection remain” (The Wilderness Act, September 3, 1964; criteria. Research Natural Areas are managed to (16 U.S.C. 1121 (note), 1131-1136)). Staff carries out maintain the natural features for which they were no active management in the Tamarac Wilderness established and to maintain natural processes; Area, but does conduct research in the unit. The therefore, management of the Refuge RNAs is management strategy for the wilderness area calls through protection against activities which directly for passive management with natural succession or indirectly modify ecological processes or alter the allowed to take its course. In theory, examples of type or feature which is being preserved. Manipula- almost all forest types on the Refuge would be pretive practices such as grazing, prescribed burning, served in this one single complex of wilderness. timber cutting, road construction and the use of chemical for plant, insect and disease control are not Wilderness Review permitted unless such are necessary to maintain the As part of the CCP process, we reviewed other type or process for which the RNA was established lands within the legislative boundaries of Tamarac or to prevent the spread of insects and disease. NWR for wilderness suitability. No additional lands There is not a lot of flexibility to manage the wilder- were found suitable for designation as defined by ness area or RNAs in regard to habitat manage- the Wilderness Act of 1964. Many of the lands have ment; however, there remains a tremendous amount been substantially altered by humans, both before of flexibility in the strategies and tactics that can be

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 12 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 2: Areas of Special Designation, Ecological Context Tamarac NWR Situated along the backbone of Minnesota, the Refuge lies within a mile of the continental divide, which separates the Mississippi and Hudson Bay watersheds. Lake Itasca, the headwaters of the Mis- sissippi River, lies approximately 25 miles northeast of the Refuge. Many Refuge lakes and rivers contain large wild rice or “manoomin” beds that produce abundant waterfowl food in most years. Upland vegetation is diverse due to the Refuge’s location in the transition zone between northern hardwood and coniferous forests, which levels off into tallgrass prairie, or the Red River Valley, a mere 10 miles west of Tamarac NWR (Figure 3 on page 14). Hence, many species of plants and animals are at the extreme western edge of their range. Historic Land Cover Over thousands of years, the area’s vegetative communities have undergone perpetual change, primarily due to climatic changes following glaciation. “Pollen core” records and pre-settlement conditions and are often the best or only sources of information on pristine, baseline conditions and natural environmental and biotic variability. This information is sometimes used as a reference of available vegetation at the various time periods. Pollen core records provide a long-term context of what the landscape was like since the time of the last glaciation, but are often limited in availability (Tester 1995). The pre- settlement vegetation represents a “snap-shot” in the time of the era immediately prior to European used to manage these areas (ie: fire suppression tac- settlement within the area and by itself it does not tics, invasive species control, etc.). adequately represent changes in vegetative commu- The area bordered by the Blackbird Auto Tour nities and their associated processes over time. and County Highways 29 and 26 was internally des- Pollen records from Itasca State Park, which had ignated as an “Old Growth Area” in the early 1990s. similar glacial history and climate as the Refuge due The goal was to set aside a significant habitat block to its proximity, indicate transition in dominant in addition to the Wilderness Area and RNAs that plant community types since the retreat of the Wis- would be allowed to develop and be managed for consin glacier (Tester 1995). Immediately following characteristics of old growth forest. Prescribed fire this retreat, the land was likely barren and void of was not excluded as a management tool, but large vegetation; however, within a few years coniferous scale timber harvests would not be allowed. Silvicul- trees such as spruce and pine began to dominate the tural treatments would be used to create small can- landscape due to the cool and moist environment. opy gaps of up to one acre in size to replicate wind These forests dominated the landscape until about throw events. 8,000 years ago, when more herbaceous species There is also a significant area designated as became prevalent. This indicates the presence of a sanctuary for the benefit of breeding birds savanna with scattered oak trees and large open (Figure 2). The lower one-third of the Refuge sup- areas of prairie due to warmer and drier conditions. ports visitor use activities and the sanctuary occu- Other studies indicate this warmer, drier period was pies the northern two-thirds of the Refuge. The characterized by extremely variable climatic condi- sanctuary is closed to the general public from March tions from drought to abundant precipitation 1 to September 1 each year. Approximately the (Almendinger 1988). Several thousand years later, northern half of the Refuge lies within the original the area became cooler and wetter again, giving rise boundary of the White Earth Reservation, which to an expansion of the coniferous forest (primarily was established in 1867. red and white pine) and other deciduous trees back into the area with a decrease of prairie. This condi-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 3: Ecoregion of Tamarac NWR

tion has persisted until the present, with some destroyed or substantially altered. Although for- increase in hardwoods in recent years. Peatlands ested communities have changed in composition formed approximately 3,000 years ago. These pollen across much of northern Minnesota following nearly core records provide a testament to the range of 150 years of logging, opportunities exist for sustain- natural variability of vegetation within the larger able management and conservation of forested com- landscape. munities in large areas. When Euro-American settlers first arrived in Minnesota Ecological Classification System Minnesota in the mid-1800s, native plant communi- Recently, the Minnesota DNR established an ties occurred in complex patterns across the entire Ecological Classification System (ECS) for land landscape. Francis M arschner (1882-1966) mapped classification and ecological mapping for Minnesota the pre-European settlement vegetation of Minne- based upon the national hierarchy of nested units sota based on Public Land Survey notes and land- (ie: Provinces, Sections, Subsections, Land Type scape patterns. His maps provide a reference Associations, etc.). The vegetation classification is condition of the vegetation in the area of Tamarac hierarchical with units describing broad landscapes NWR prior to European settlement. Caution should to local native plant communities (NPC). The Min- be used when interpreting these historic vegetation nesota ECS enables land managers to consider eco- maps because of the scale and base data that logical patterns for broad landscapes or for a single Marschner used, but it does provide a good context small local unit, (ie: forest stand or native plant com- of historic forest types. Based upon Marschner’s munity) which is valuable at multiple planning levels interpretation for the area that is now Tamarac and crucial to the long-term ecological integrity and NWR, pre-European settlement cover types were stability of these ecosystems. One of the most comprised of mature stands of red and white pine, important considerations in the ECS classification is jack pine barrens, aspen-birch, mixed hardwoods, the inclusion of ecological processes as an organiz- conifer bogs, swamps and numerous lakes (Figure 4 ing principle (e.g., fire regime, successional or seral on page 15). After more than a century of extensive stage, hydrology, etc.). In order to facilitate habitat settlement and development, the vast majority of management and restoration, an assessment of cur- native plant communities within the state have been

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 14 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 4: Vegetation of Tamarac NWR and Surrounding Landscape Prior to European Settlement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 5: Tamarac NWR in Relation to Tamarac NWR falls primarily within the Northern Drift and Lake Plains section, with a small sliver Major Provinces of Minnesota falling in the Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal (Figure 6). Subsections are units within sections that are defined using glacial deposition processes, surface bedrock formations, local climate, topographic relief and the distribution of plants, especially trees. Tam- arac NWR falls primarily with the Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains subsection, and a small portion in the Hardwood Hills subsection (Figure 6 on page 17). The subsection level will be the primary reference for landscape level planning. The Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains subsection should be the primary reference for planning as greater than 97 percent of the Refuge falls within this subsection. Considerations for the Hardwood Hills subsection should be restricted to the extreme southwestern corner of the Refuge, along the west side of Tama- rac Lake. The Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains Subsec- tion is characterized by the mix of end moraines, outwash and till plains, abundant lakes and wetlands, and large, heavily forested tracts. Kettle lakes and wetlands are common on the outwash plains (Minnesota DNR 2006). Before this area was settled by people of European descent, forests of jack pine mixed with northern pin oak were most common on excessively drained portions of broad outwash plains, and aspen-birch and pine (mixed red and white) forests were the most common on the rent conditions including disturbance regimes, suc- irregularly sloped end moraines. Mixed hardwood cessional pathways, rare communities, common and pine forests, dominated by a diverse mix of plant/animals and habitats, invasive species, water northern hardwoods and white pine, were found in resources, and soils is imperative. The comparison the most fire-protected areas at the northern and of current conditions to historical and desired future eastern edges of the subsection. Fire occurred on a conditions is crucial in the development and refine- 10- to 40-year interval within much of the subsec- ment of management goals, objectives and strate- tion, accounting for the dominance by upland coni- gies. fers and quaking aspen-birch forests (Frissel 1973); however, natural fire protection was provided by Provinces are the highest level of classification irregular topography, broad wetlands, and rela- under the Minnesota ECS. These provinces were tively large lakes. Forest management and tourism defined using major climate zones, native vegetation are the predominant land uses within this area and biomes such as prairies, deciduous forests and today; however, agriculture is becoming more com- boreal forests. The four major provinces of Minne- mon. Near-shore habitat is being lost at a rapid pace sota include the Laurentian Mixed Forest, Eastern due to increased development along lakes, thus neg- Broadleaf Forest, Prairie Parkland and the Tall- atively affecting fish and wildlife. grass Aspen Parklands. Tamarac NWR falls primarily in the Laurentian Mixed Forest with the The Hardwood Hills Subsection is characterized exception of a small sliver along the southwestern by many wetlands, prairie potholes, and kettle lakes edge of the Refuge, which falls in the Eastern Broa- exist throughout the area. Before settlement by dleaf Forest (Figure 5). Tamarac NWR lies near the people of European descent, vegetation included tallgrass prairie province but is clearly within a for- maple-basswood forests interspersed with oak est landscape. savanna, tallgrass prairie, and oak forest, but the topography and distribution of lakes and wetlands Sections are units within provinces that are provided a partial barrier to fire that resulted in defined by origin of glacial deposits, regional eleva- woodlands rather than prairie vegetation. Fire was tion, distribution of plants and regional climate. important in oak savanna development, whereas,

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 16 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 6: Tamarac NWR in Relation to Sections and Subsections of the Ecological Classification System of Minnesota

windthrow was common in the sugar maple-bass-  The Partners in Flight Boreal Hardwood Tran- wood forests. Currently much of this subsection is sition [land] Bird Conservation Plan; farmed and many wetlands have been drained.  The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Important areas of forest and prairie exist through- Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan; and out the subsection, but they are small and fragmented. Development, tourism, and outdoor  The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes recreation, especially around lakes, are other signif- Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan. icant land uses that are impacting wildlife within All four conservation plans will be integrated this subsection. under the umbrella of the North American Bird Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives Conservation Initiative. Each of the bird conservation initiatives has a process for designating priority Several migratory bird conservation plans have species, modeled to a large extent on the Partners in been published over the last decade that can be used Flight method of computing scores based on inde- to help guide management decisions for refuges. pendent assessments of global relative abundance, Bird conservation planning efforts have evolved breeding and wintering distribution, vulnerability to from a largely local, site-based orientation to a more threats, area importance, and population trend. regional, even inter-continental, landscape-oriented These scores are often used by agencies in develop- perspective (Figure 7 on page 18). ing lists of priority bird species. The Service based Several trans-national migratory bird conserva- its 2001 list of Non-game Birds of Conservation tion initiatives have emerged to help guide the plan- Concern primarily on the Partners in Flight, shore- ning and implementation process. The regional bird, and waterbird status assessment scores. plans relevant to Tamarac NWR are: Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife  The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint Conservation Strategy Venture Implementation Plan of the North In 2005, Minnesota completed the Comprehen- American Waterfowl Management Plan; sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), a stra-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 7: Bird Conservation Regions Related to Tamarac NWR

tegic plan to better manage populations of “species  Migratory bird species derived from Service in greatest conservation need” in Minnesota. The wide and international conservation planning plan was developed with the support of funding efforts. from the State Wildlife Grant Program created by Congress in 2001. The heart of the strategic plan is  Rare and declining terrestrial and aquatic for a partnership of conservation organizations plants and animals that represent an abbrevia- across Minnesota to work together to sustain the tion of the Endangered Species program’s pre- populations of the identified species. Members of liminary draft “Species of Concern” list for the the partnership include the Minnesota Department Region. of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Appendix D lists Regional Resource Conserva- Service, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Minne- tion Priority species relevant to Tamarac NWR and sota, and the University of Minnesota, as well as WMD. many other agencies and conservation organizations. The plan outlines priority conservation actions that might be undertaken by partners. Landscape Connectivity and Corridors Forests throughout North America are becoming Midwest Region Fish and Wildlife increasingly fragmented and in some cases isolated. Conservation Priorities Fragmented and isolated forests tend to take on Every species is important; however the number characteristics of habitat islands unless corridors of species in need of attention exceeds the resources and connectivity to larger blocks of forest are main- of the Service. To focus effort effectively, Region 3 tained. Ultimately, biotic diversity is lost over time of the Fish and Wildlife Service compiled a list of within these isolated forests. Tamarac NWR’s posi- Resource Conservation Priorities. The list includes: tion near the edge of three major biomes, coupled with increasing development by humans, makes it  All federally listed threatened and endangered extremely susceptible to isolation from the rest of species and proposed and candidate species that the forest province extending into Minnesota from occur in the Region. northeastern North America. The Ponsford Prairie

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 18 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

is an open landscape to the east of the Refuge that percent Native American, 0.3 percent African was once historically a forested area. If develop- American with Asians, Hispanic and other races ment or agriculture were to expand to the northwest contributing 3 percent (Table 1 on page 21). or southwest from the Ponsford Prairie it could threaten Tamarac NWR’s connectivity to the rest of Area Economy the intact forest. Table 2 on page 22 shows the economy of the region surrounding the Refuge. The area population If Tamarac NWR intends to maintain the biolog- increased by 11.3 percent from 1995 to 2005, com- ical integrity, diversity and environmental health, it pared with a 10.0 percent increase for the state of is imperative that connectivity is maintained to the Minnesota and a 11.4 percent increase for the U.S. forested ecosystems of Minnesota. Refuge staff has as a whole. Area employment increased by 30.8 per- discussed the possibility of maintaining the connec- cent from 1995 to 2005, with the state of Minnesota tivity to other natural resource land management showing a 16.0 percent increase and the U.S. a 17.0 areas such as Ita sca State Park, Chippewa National percent increase. Area per capita income increased Forest, state forests (White Earth, Two Inlets, by 23.7 percent over the 1995-2005 period, while the Smoky Hills), wildlife management areas (Hubbel state of Minnesota and the U.S. increased by 17.3 Pond), county and tribal lands through corridors, and 13.2 percent respectively. conservation easements and stewardship planning with both land management agencies and private landowners. Climate The climate at Tamarac NWR is characterized by Other Conservation Lands in the Area of warm summers and long, cold winters. Tempera- tures range from minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit to Tamarac NWR 107 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual average precipita- The Refuge is an integral part of a significant tion is 25 inches with an average annual snowfall of complex of federal, state, tribal and county lands 46 inches. Frost can occur in almost any month administered for natural resources (Figure 8 on although June, July and August are usually frost- page 20). The Minnesota Department of Natural free. The annual average growing season is 115 Resources manages the 3,342-acre Hubbel Pond days. Most climatic models predict that this area Wildlife Management Area (WMA), which borders will warm by 4 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius within the Refuge to south, the Greenwater Lake Scientific the next 50 years. and Natural Area, Itasca State Park, and three large state forests (White Earth, Two Inlets and Geology and Glaciation Smoky Hills) that lie within 25 miles of the Refuge to the east. Many other small state WMAs lie within Formation of the regional terrain is the result of short distance of the Refuge as well. The Becker glaciation, specifically and most recently, the County Natural Resources Department is responsi- retreat of the Wadena lobe of the Wisconsin ice ble for managing the county's nearly 75,000 acres of sheet toward the northwest, leaving a complex tax-forfeited lands, most of which lie within the east- series of marginal and terminal moraines. The ern half of the county. A significant portion of this Itasca moraine, which covers most of the Refuge, tax-forfeited land lies along the northwestern and associated outwash plains are a direct result of boundary of the Refuge. The northern half of the this glaciation. Moraines are formed by the deposi- Refuge lie within the White Earth Reservation, tion of soil and rock at the edges of a glacier as it although most of the land adjacent the Refuge in not moves. Terminal moraines are associated with the in tribal ownership. The Chippewa National Forest, tip of a glacier, whereas, marginal moraines are which is administered by the U.S. Forest Service, is along sides of the glacier. Water from the melting located approximately 45 miles northeast of the Ref- ice formed lakes and rivers, while glacial till that uge. The Refuge staff work closely with these land was deposited formed the moraines. Within Tama- management agencies as well as the Many Point rac NWR, a “chain of lakes” was formed along these Boy Scout Camp, a private entity, and other private marginal moraines primarily due to the settling and citizens on issues of mutual concern. slumping of wet sediments. The outwash plains were created when “meltwater” carried away fine sediment from the retreating glacier. The outwash Social and Economic Context plains on the Refuge are characterized by numerous Tamarac NWR is located in Becker County, Min- depressions such as kettles, shallow pits, and pot- nesota. The City of Detroit Lakes is the largest holes, hence known as “pitted” outwash plains. town, 22 miles south of the Refuge headquarters Initially the Wadena lobe moved southeastward with 7,348 people listed in the 2000 Census. The into northern M racial makeup of the county is 89 percent white, 7 innesota from the limestone belt of

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 8: Conservation Lands in the Vicinity of Tamarac NWR

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 20 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Table 1: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Becker County, Minnesota

Population Becker County Minnesota Population, 2006 estimate 32,230 5,167,101 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 7.4% 5.0% Population, 2000 30,000 4,919,479 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2006 6.4% 6.7% Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2006 23.2% 24.3% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2006 16.2% 12.1% Female persons, percent, 2006 50.2% 50.3% White persons, percent, 2006 (a) 89.6% 89.3% Black persons, percent, 2006 (a) 0.3% 4.5% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2006 (a) 7.3% 1.2% Asian persons, percent, 2006 (a) 0.5% 3.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2006 (a) 0 0.1% Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2006 2.2% 1.5% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2006 (b) 1.0% 3.8% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2006 88.9% 85.9% Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct 5 yrs old & over 61.8% 57.0% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 1.0% 5.3% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 4.4% 8.5% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 82.9% 87.9% Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 16.7% 27.4% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 4,799 679,236 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 23.1 21.9 Households, 2000 11,844 1,895,127 Persons per household, 2000 2.49 2.52 Median household income, 2004 $40,182 $51,202 Per capita money income, 1999 $17,085 $23,198 Persons below poverty, percent, 2004 10.9% 8.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts (2008) the Winnipeg lowland, depositing calcareous sandy Soils loam and gray till that contains Paleozoic limestone from southern Manitoba. This deposition left behind A heavy mantle of glacial drift covers all of rich, calcareous fens that are interspersed amongst Becker County. The source material and the mode the marginal moraines. The Wadena lobe retreated of deposition of the drift contribute to important dif- northward and re-advanced to form the Itasca ferences in soil texture and nutrients that ultimately Moraine approximately 20,000 years ago. The affect vegetative growth (McAndrews 1966). In gen- deposits of sand and gravel drift found throughout eral, Refuge soils run on the sandy side, from coarse the Refuge, supported dense coniferous stands, ulti- sand to sandy loams that are well to excessively mately resulting in accumulation of organic material drained (Table 3 on page 22.). Soils on the northern in depressions underlain with clay, thus poor drain- half of the Refuge are generally lighter than those age is a problem in lower areas. in the south where all extant grasslands occur. Sub- soils are mostly limy clay loams. All areas soil tested to date produced neutral to slightly basic pH read- ings.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Table 2: Summary of Area Economy, 2005, Tamarac NWR

Population Employment Per Capita Incomea

County Percent Percent Percent 2005b change 2005 change 2005 change 1995-2005 1995-2005 1995-2005 Becker, Minnesota 31.9 10.0% 22.4 44.8% $28,968 30.0%

Hubbard, Minnesota 18.8 13.7% 8.0 3.0% $26,208 17.5%

Area Total 50.7 11.3% 30.5 30.8% $27,588 23.7%

Minnesota 5,126.7 10.0 % 3,498.6 16.0 % $37,290 17.3 %

United States 266,278.4 11.4 % 174,249.6 17.0 % $34,471 13.2 %

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2007.

a. In 2006 dollars. b. Population and employment in thousands; Per Capita Income in 2006 dollars.

Table 3: Distinct Classes of Soils Within tion of the moisture and nutrient parameters of soils Tamarac NWR Based Upon Moisture Capacity is important in predicting plant growth, successional pathways and subsequent disturbance regimes. and Texture

Soil Moisture Class Sum Acres Acre % Hydrology and Topology 01 - Dry Sand 9.2 0.02% Tamarac NWR is located near or at the top of two major watersheds (Figure 9 on page 23). The Otter- 02 - Dry-Mesic Sand 728.8 1.69% tail River watershed originates just north of the 03 - Dry-Mesic Loam 15,050.4 35.00% Refuge in Elbow Lake. It flows southerly through a chain of lakes along the eastern half of the Refuge, 04 - Mesic Sand 4,613.1 10.73% eventually exiting the Refuge via Height of Land 05 - Mesic Loam 1,550.7 3.61% Lake in a south-westerly direction. The Egg River, 06 - Wet-Mesic Sand 318.1 0.74% which is a tributary to the Ottertail River, is primarily contained within Refuge boundaries and flows 07 - Wet-Mesic Loam 1,444.5 3.36% southerly through a chain of lakes along the north- 09 - Wet Loam 195.1 0.45% western half of the Refuge and merges into Ottertail 10 - Peat 11,200.4 26.05% River in the central portion of the Refuge. The Buf- falo River watershed originates in Pine Lake and 11 - Water 7,891.9 18.35% exits the Refuge in an east-west fashion via Tama- Total 43,002.1 100.00% rac Lake along the western boundary of the Refuge. These watersheds eventually drain into Hudson Bay Soil map units delineated in soil surveys usually through the Red River of the North. The Continen- do not coincide exactly with habitat, although a tal Divide, which is located a couple of miles just strong relationship often exists. The reason for the east of Refuge, divides the Red River and Missis- lack of direct correlation is found in the concepts of sippi River Watersheds. There are 31 palustrine soil taxonomy and soil mapping methodology. Soil wetlands (shallow lakes), 14 miles of riverine habi- properties that affect habitat type differentiation tats and approximately 1,500 small wetlands within are those that affect conditions in plant growth, such the Refuge. as moisture and nutrients. Soil taxonomy, however, The deposits of sand and gravel drift found on the is not based directly on such functional properties, Refuge, supported dense coniferous stands, ulti- but rather on morphological features that can more mately resulting in accumulation of organic material readily be measured and classified (ie: type of hori- in depressions underlain with clay, thus poor drain- zon, color, structure and texture. These soil taxon- age is a problem in lower areas. Elevation ranges omy parameters may or may not have a direct from 1,400 to 1,650 feet above mean sea level (MSL). bearing on plant growth; however, careful examina- Generally, the higher elevations are in the north-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 22 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 9: Location of Tamarac NWR in Relation to Major Watersheds of North-central Minnesota

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

northeast and eastern portions of the Refuge. Broad For the purpose of this plan, the 50 vegetative areas through the central portion of the Refuge are cover types were combined into 12 general habitat between 1,450 and 1,500 feet above MSL, and the types (Table 4 on page 27). The vegetative cover lowest portions are in the extreme southwest corner types were derived from aerial photo interpretation of the Refuge. Total relief of the Refuge is in excess conducted by the Upper Midwest Environment Sci- of 250 feet. The steeper slopes typically exist in the ences Center in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, based on 2005 northern one-third of the Refuge, whereas the aerial photography. These 12 major habitat types southern two-thirds is indicative of an outwash (Figure 10 on page 25) are described in the following plain, containing fewer areas with slopes in excess of paragraphs. 24 percent. Upland deciduous forest (16,167 acres): This habitat type includes aspen, paper birch, oak, red and Refuge Habitats sugar maple, basswood, northern hardwoods and Vegetation on the Refuge is diverse due to its forest broadleaf mix cover types. This habitat type location in the transition zone between northern comprises approximately 37 percent of the Refuge hardwood and coniferous forests. (See Figure 10 on land base. Aspen, particularly in the young to mid page 25, and Table 4 on page 27) age classes, dominates this habitat type within the Refuge. Pre-settlement cover types were comprised of mature stands of red and white pine, jack pine bar- Mixed upland forest (4,348 acres): This habitat rens, stands of aspen, birch, and mixed hardwoods, type contains a mixture of hardwoods and soft- numerous lakes, conifer bogs and swamps. The woods, and includes an aspen/birch/spruce/fir mix, extensive logging of red and white pine virtually aspen/pine and forest upland broadleaf/coniferous eliminated the dominant pine cover types from the mix cover types. This habitat type comprises landscape. Following the harvest, these timbered approximately 10 percent of the Refuge land base. lands were burned two to three times in as many Red and white pines are prevalent in the overstory years. This practice resulted in appreciable along with a mix of hardwood, such as aspen and regrowth of aspen, birch, and hardwoods, but not birch. Jack pines are often mixed with pin oak and conifers. burr oak on drier sandy soils. Current cover types are significantly altered Lowland deciduous forest (755 acres): This habi- from pre-settlement times (Figure 11 on page 26). tat type primarily consists of black ash and lowland Red and white pine has been reduced by 92 percent forest broadleaf mix cover types. These communi- and jack pine coverage has been reduced by 89 per- ties are often referred to as black ash swamps. Spe- cent. Significant increases have occurred in mixed cies composition includes green ash , black ash, and hardwood and the aspen-birch cover types (plus 244 occasionally American elm. The lowland hardwoods and 40 percent, respectively). The upland grass are located mostly on medium quality sites which are cover type has increased due to remnant openings found along sluggish streams, swamp edges and in that were created for farming at the time of settle- depressions within the upland hardwoods. ment . Mixed lowland forest (463 acres): This habitat Forest type consists of a mix of lowland conifers and hardwoods, primarily black ash, and includes the lowland Sixty percent of the Refuge is forested, domi- forested broadleaf/coniferous mix. The mixed low- nated by second-growth timber such as: land forested broadleaf/coniferous is heavily domi-  aspen (Populus spp.) nated by hardwoods in the overstory.  jack pine (Pinus banksiana) Upland coniferous forest (713 acres): This habitat type consists of jack pine, red pine, white pine,  red pine (Pinus resinosa) red cedar (non-native), white spruce/balsam fir and  white pine (Pinus strobus) forested coniferous mix as the dominant cover  balsam fir (Abies balsamea) types. As species that once dominated the landscape as pure stands, red pine and white pine comprises  black spruce (Picea mariana) only 1 percent (482 acres) of the Refuge, including  tamarack (Larix laricina) plantations. Jack pine barrens, which were quite  paper birch (Betula papyrifera) prevalent prior to European settlement, only make up about one-quarter of a percent of the Refuge. Jack  red and white oak (Quercus spp.) pine is located in pure stands on dry sandy soils. In  sugar maple (Acer saccharum) heavier soils it is mixed with oak, red pine and aspen.  American basswood (Tilia americana)

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 24 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 10: Current Land Cover, Tamarac NWR

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 11: Tamarac NWR Habitat Grassland About 1,360 acres (3 percent) of grassland are managed on the Refuge, mostly remnants of early settler clearings or small farms. The tallgrass prairie (Prairie Pothole region in the Red River Valley) begins about 10 miles west of Tamarac NWR. Upland grass (1,362 acres): This habitat type consists of cool season grasses, other grasses and forbs, and warm season grasses. All of these sites were anthropogenic habitats created as a result of logging and early settler clearings that were planted into agriculture crops in the early days of the Ref- uge. In recent years, most of these sites have been converted primarily to warm season grasses. Many non-native species of grass and other herbaceous plants are quite prevalent throughout many of these areas. Lowland coniferous forest (1,863 acres): This habitat type consists of pure stands of tamarack, Shrub mixed black spruce/balsam fir and lowland conifer- Upland shrub (1,519 acres): This habitat type is ous mixed stands. The lowland forested coniferous dominated by upland shrub species such as hazel, mix is dominated by lowland conifers such as tama- willow, dogwoods and other upland shrubs. Typi- rack, black spruce and balsam fir. cally few to no trees are present in the overstory Wetlands and very little herbaceous cover exists where the shrub layer is dense. Thirty percent of the Refuge is comprised of large and small wetland complexes dominated by wild Lowland shrub (2,657 acres): This habitat type rice, sedges and cattail. consists of lowland areas typically within a wetland where the dominant vegetation is shrubs. These Marsh/Wetland (6,251 acres): This habitat type areas include bog birch, tag alder, willow and scrub/ consists of cattail, giant reed grass (Phragmites), shrub lowland types. Generally, there is a thick her- mixed emergent aquatics, rooted-floating vegeta- baceous cover beneath the shrubs consisting of a tion, sedge meadow/bluejoint grass, sedge meadow/ variety of sedge species. Large expanses of these cattail mix, reed canary grass and wet meadow areas typically surround the shallow lakes within cover types. This is the third most abundant habitat the Refuge as well as closed wetland systems. A lack type and comprises approximately 14 percent of the of fire within these habitats has resulted in brush Refuge land base. species invading and becoming dominant in these areas. Open Water Open Water (7,117 acres): This habitat type con- Developed Land sists of open water, submergent vegetation and wild Development (374 acres): This classification is rice cover types. Although open water is not a plant not a true habitat type but merely depicts areas on community, it is classified as such because through- the Refuge that have been developed such as build- out a majority of the year, the surface consists of ings, maintenance facilities and roads. open water but vegetation can occur within these areas. Most of these open water habitat types are Refuge Wildlife natural, but some have been enhanced through the construction of water control structures and dikes. Birds Wild rice is an important staple food for waterfowl Tamarac NWR is especially important for migra- migrating through the Refuge in the fall, as well as tory birds, both during the migrating and nesting subsistence for Native Americans. This habitat type seasons. Fifty-three species of birds that are on the is the second most abundant habitat type and com- Fish and Wildlife Service’s Region 3 Regional Con- prises approximately 16 percent of the Refuge land servation Priority Species list reside on the Refuge base. or migrate through, although only 21 of these species breed within the Refuge. The remaining 32 species have been documented in migration. Many of these species, as well as other species, are listed

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 26 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Table 4: Vegetative Cover Types of Tamarac NWR Based on 2005 Aerial Photography Interpretation Number of stands Total Acres Major Habitat Type Habitat Type Number of Stands Total Acres

1,559 16,167 Upland Deciduous Aspen (Upland) 786 6,698 Aspen/Oak 179 1,785 Basswood 5 9 Forested Broadleaf Mix 299 2,346 (Upland) Northern Hardwoods 199 4,264 Oak 84 1,035 Paper Birch 1 1 Red Maple/Sugar Maple 6 29 593 4,348 Mixed Upland Forest Aspen/Birch/Fir/Spruce 240 1,579 Aspen/Pine 190 1,601 Forested Broadleaf/ 163 1,168 Coniferous Mix (Upland) 222 755 Lowland Deciduous Black Ash 95 313 Forested Broadleaf Mix 127 442 (Lowland) 110 463 Mixed Lowland Forest Forested Broadleaf/ 110 463 Coniferous Mix (Low- land) 169 713 Upland Conifer Jack Pine 19 94 Jack Pine Plantation 2 9 Red Pine 33 221 Red Pine Plantation 27 161 Red Pine/White Pine 10 34 White Pine 26 66 Spruce/Fir 43 95 Forested Coniferous Mix 9 33 (Upland) 270 1,863 Lowland Conifer Spruce/Fir Swamp 7 116 Tamarack 233 1,625 Forested Coniferous Mix 30 122 (Lowland) 279 1,519 Upland Shrub Scrub/Shrub (Upland) 279 1,519 536 2,657 Lowland Shrub Bog Birch 10 273 Scrub/Shrub (Lowland) 442 2,020 Tag Alder 38 98 Willow 46 266 180 1,362 Upland Grass Cool Season Grasses 71 604 Grasses/Forbs 83 344 Hayfieldsa 6 1 Pasturea 4 6 Warm Season Grasses 16 407

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Table 4: Vegetative Cover Types of Tamarac NWR Based on 2005 Aerial Photography Interpretation Number of stands Total Acres Major Habitat Type Habitat Type Number of Stands Total Acres

1,104 6,251 Marsh/Wetland Cattail 119 897 Giant Reed Grass 47 108 (Phragmites) Mixed Emergents 6 26 Rooted-Floating Vegeta- 63 873 tion Sedge Meadow/Bluejoint 589 2,885 Grass Sedge Meadow/Typha 278 1,457 Mix Reed Canary Grass 1 2 Wet Meadow 1 3 243 7,117 Open water Water 86 3,464 Submergent Vegetation 110 2,902 Wild Rice 47 751 19 374 Development Developed 16 46 Roadside 3 328

a. Hayfields and pasture in this table were mis-identified in the aerial photo interpretation and are actually cool season grasses.

species of greatest conservation concern by the Min- The Refuge is currently cooperating on a Minne- nesota DNR. Of the 258 species of birds that have sota DNR research study to relate the distribution been observed on the Refuge, 113 species are and welfare of a local population of ducks, specifi- reported to have nested here. A list of bird species cally Ring-necked Ducks, to the pattern of Refuges known to occur on Tamarac NWR is included in (including state refuges) existing in north-central Appendix C. Minnesota. Understanding the factors influencing the distribution of locally raised Ring-necked Ducks Waterfowl have been an important bird group in the fall may provide valuable insights into the dis- throughout the history of the Refuge. Primary nest- tribution of refuges required to meet management ers include: objectives for Ring-necked Ducks in Minnesota.  Mallard Duck As recently as the early 1970s, the Bald Eagle  Wood Duck population was in jeopardy throughout the United  Blue-winged Teal States. Only one Bald Eagle nest was active on the Refuge. Since that time the number of eagle nests  Ring-necked Duck has increased to approximately 30 occupied territo-  Canada Goose ries and 25 active nests on an annual basis, produc-  Trumpeter Swan ing 20-30 eaglets per year. Other raptors, such as Red-tailed Hawks, Red-shouldered Hawks, Broad- Duck nesting densities are among the highest winged Hawks, Cooper’s hawks, and Sharp-shinned reported for the woodland transition zone in Minne- Hawks breed and migrate through the Refuge. sota. Spring surveys indicate slightly more than 40 breeding pairs of ducks per square mile. In addition The wetland ecosystems are particularly impor- to the breeding population, approximately 50,000 tant to other waterbirds. These wetlands are ideal ducks also migrate through the Refuge each fall nesting sites for species including: stopping to feed on the abundant annual wild rice  Common Loons crops. The Refuge was the focal point for the 1987 Minnesota DNR Trumpeter Swan reintroduction  Great Blue Heron program. The Trumpeter Swan was extirpated from  Forster ’s Tern Minnesota in the early 1900s. The population within  Black Tern the Refuge has grown to more than 30 breeding  American Bittern pairs and an annual production of around 100 cyg- nets per year. Average brood size is nearly twice the  Least Bittern national average.  Ye l l o w R a i l

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 28 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

habitats or shallow water (<10 cm) that most shorebirds prefer. Despite low shorebird densities, the American Woodcock breeds in significant numbers throughout the Refuge, again primarily due to the abundance of young forest habitats. The American Woodcock is also a Resource Conservation Priority species for the Midwest Region due to long-term declines in breeding populations. In Minnesota, there is more early successional forest than there ever were historically, yet the declines persist. The Refuge is currently engaged in research that is examining low productivity rates or “recruitment” as a possible cause for these declines. Resident bird or year-round species include:

 Ruffed Grouse Golden-winged Warbler. Photo Credit: FWS  Wild Turkey  Sora Rail  Great-horned Owl  Virginia Rail  Barred Owl  Sedge Wren  Downy Woodpecker  Swamp Sparrow  Hairy Woodpecker Annual surveys of Common Loons indicate  Pileated Woodpecker nearly 70 adults, but production is less than 10 loon  Blue Jay chicks per year.  Black-capped Chickadee The diverse forests of Tamarac NWR are well  White-breasted Nuthatch. suited for providing habitat for migrating and nesting passerines. Red-eyed Vireos, Ovenbirds, Mammals Veery’s, Scarlet Tanagers, Rose-breasted Gros- The Refuge supports 53 species of resident mam- beaks, Golden-winged Warblers and Chestnut-sided mals and seven species of bats that migrate off-Ref- Warblers are common breeders throughout the Ref- uge to overwinter. Some of the mammal species uge. found on the Refuge are listed as RCPs for Region 3 The Refuge has been actively engaged in the (ie: gray wolf) and numerous other species are listed Golden-winged Warbler research because of the species of greatest conservation concern by the Min- high nesting densities found on the Refuge due to an nesota DNR (ie: Franklin’s ground squirrel). Two abundance of early successional forest habitat packs of gray wolves have successfully produced within the Refuge’s boundaries. The Golden-winged young on the Refuge, and a third pack’s territory Warbler is currently listed as a Resource Conserva- overlaps into Tamarac NWR. White-tailed deer, tion Priority species for Region 3 (USFWS) and is beaver, striped skunk, raccoon, muskrat, mink and considered a neotropical migratory species of high red squirrels are abundant. White-tailed deer and continental conservation concern by Partners in beaver can severely impact the Refuge’s ability to Flight (PIF) (Rich et al. 2004). Since 1966, the restore or manage habitats. Currently there is an Golden-winged Warbler has declined by approxi- overabundance of white-tailed deer state-wide. The mately 3.5 percent per year across its breeding Refuge has recently supported a relatively high range. An estimated 76 percent of the global popula- density of deer (26 to 28 deer/mi2 pre-fawn survey) tion of Golden-winged Warblers breeds within Bird and thus the adverse effects of browsing in forest Conservation Region 12 (BCR12), and approxi- understory are significant with huge ecological ram- mately 40 percent the global population breed in ifications. Beaver can have significant effects on Minnesota (Rosenberg 2004). Surveys indicate water levels which can directly impact the produc- approximately 1 percent to 2 percent of this global tion of wild rice within lakes. Cottontail rabbits and population reside within the boundaries of Tamarac snowshoe hare populations follow a cyclical pattern. NWR. Other furbearers, including red fox, coyote, bobcat, fisher, otter, long and short-tailed weasels, are Although not abundant on the Refuge, various locally common and seen in the area on a regular species of shorebirds can be seen throughout the basis. Based on state-wide surveys conducted by the Refuge. The Refuge contains very little mud flat Minnesota DNR, most of the mammals that are con-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

sidered “predatory” are well above long-term average depth of 8 feet or less and are thus subject trends and historical records (ie: fox, skunk and rac- to frequent winterkills. coon), which have devastating effects on ground nesting birds. A list of species known to occur within Carp are present within Ottertail River system, the Refuge is included in Appendix C. but so far restricted in distribution by a box culvert structure in the Hubbel Pond WMA, which is just Fish south of the Refuge. The possibility exists that carp can bypass the box culvert via a ditch from Cotton Fish surveys have been conducted on select lakes Lake to Height of Land Lake, thus potentially and streams by the Minnesota DNR , the LaCrosse entering the Refuge as far up the Ottertail River as Fishery Resource Office (USFWS), the White the Chippewa Lake water control structure and Earth Natural Resources Department and various could potentially destroy wetland habitats in Rice universities in cooperation with the Refuge staff on and Blackbird lakes. Other fish species, like fathead a periodic basis. Sampling by various methods has minnows and walleye, forage on amphipods, which documented 37 species of fish including: are the primary food resource of migrant and breed-  Walleye ing waterfowl. Fathead minnows may be present in lakes that were previously fishless systems.  Ye l l o w p e r c h  Black crappie Reptiles and Amphibians  Large-mouth bass Eleven species of amphibians and five species of reptiles have been recorded. Lakes, streams,  Bluegill ditches and other wetland basins provide aquatic  Pumpkinseed habitat required for a variety of turtles, frogs, toads  Rock bass and salamanders. Spring peeper, American toad, wood, chorus, northern leopard, gray tree, Cope’s  Brown bullhead gray tree and mink frogs are common. Garter  Ye l l o w b u l l h e a d snakes and prairie skinks are common throughout  Black bullhead the Refuge. Snapping and painted turtles are also common. The snapping turtle is listed a species of  White sucker special concern by the Minnesota DNR.  Northern pike Reptiles and amphibians are important food  Bowfin sources for many mammals, birds and fish. Their Numerous other fish species were also docu- numbers and diversity are often indicators of the mented including shiners, dace, chubs, darters and health of an ecosystem. Many species of reptiles and other minnow species (Appendix C). Walleye and amphibians are declining on a state and nationwide lake sturgeon are both listed as Regional Conserva- scale. tion Priority Species (USFWS) for Region 3; however, only the lake sturgeon is listed as a state listed Invertebrates species of special concern. Twenty-five species of butterflies have been documented to date although formalized surveys have The Minnesota DNR currently stocks Wauboose not occurred. Refuge wetlands are presumed to con- and North Tamarac lakes with walleye fry on an tain typical freshwater invertebrates found in the every-other year cycle. Likewise, the White Earth Natural Resources Department stocks walleye fry in Lost and Teacracker lakes on a similar cycle. The White Earth Natural Resources Department in cooperation with LaCrosse FRO recently stocked lake sturgeon in Round Lake, which is immediately upstream of the Refuge on the Ottertail River. Although no lake sturgeon were stocked directly in the waters of Tamarac NWR, they have the potential to enter the Refuge via the Ottertail River. Some of the issues that threaten the Refuge’s fishery and waterfowl are undesirable nuisance fish species (bullheads, common carp and fathead minnows), poor survival of naturally produced walleye, and winterkills. All the Refuge water areas, with the exception of Lost and Wauboose Lakes have an A woodchuck takes a rest. Photo Credit: Dick Henry

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 30 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

them have been known to breed on the Refuge. Sev- eral state-listed species of concern occur on the Ref- uge, including:

 Short-eared Owl  Ye l l o w R a i l  Cerulean Warbler  Franklin’s Gull  American White Pelican  Northern myotis  Eastern pipistrelle  Mountain lion  Prairie vole Gray tree frog. Photo Credit: Dick Henry  Woodland vole Refuge Resources of Concern area but only limited sampling has been done as well. There is speculation that some freshwater Resources of Concern were identified by litera- invertebrate species have been negatively impacted ture review and expert opinion. Refuge resources of by fish species that were not historically present concern include special areas, habitats, ecosystems, within several wetland basins (ie: fathead minnows). and individual species. The National Wildlife Refuge Freshwater invertebrates are an extremely impor- System’s Habitat Management Plan policy defines tant food source for waterfowl, during spring migra- resources of concern as: tion, egg laying and brood rearing. “...all plant and/or animal species, species groups, or communities specifically identified in Threatened and Endangered Species the Refuge purpose, NWRS mission, or international, national, regional, state, or ecosystem As of July 2010, the gray wolf (canis lupus) is the conservation plans or acts. Habitats or plant only federally listed endangered species in Becker communities should be considered resources of County. The status of a proposed delisting of the concern when they are specifically identified in wolf is subject to court action. There are no other the Refuge purpose(s), support species or spe- federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed cies groups identified in Refuge purposes, sup- or candidate species in Becker County. However, port Service trust species, and/or are important the Canada lynx is listed as threatened in 14 Minne- in the maintenance or restoration of biological sota counties, including adjacent Clearwater integrity, diversity and environmental health.” County. Two unverified Canada lynx sightings have been reported in northeastern Becker County. To better focus on Refuge habitat management, the staff developed a list of Refuge Resources of The state of Minnesota lists 22 endangered, Concern for Tamarac NWR (Appendix D). Some of threatened or special concern species, which have these “priority” resources of concern could ulti- been sighted or reproduce on the Refuge. The six mately be known as “focal” species, which should be species with confirmed reproduction are: representatives of other species or guilds that are highly associated with the same habitat attributes  Gray wolf or conditions. These species are not always species  Trumpeter Swan imperil or rare, but could be good indicators of a  Red-shouldered Hawk particular habitat type.  Bald Eagle Threats to Resources  Forster ’s Tern  Snapping turtle Invasive Species The Henslow’s Sparrow is state-listed as endan- Exotic and invasive plant species pose one of the gered. The Peregrine Falcon, Wilson’s Phalarope, greatest threats to the maintenance and restoration Loggerhead Shrike, Horned Grebe and Common of the diverse habitats found on the Refuge. They Tern are state-listed as threatened. Although some threaten biological diversity by causing population of the state-listed threatened or endangered species declines of native species and by altering key eco- can be occasionally seen during migration, none of system processes like hydrology, nitrogen fixation,

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

and fire regimes. Left unchecked, these plants can come to dominate areas and reduce the value of the land as wildlife habitat. There is often a seed source of many of these exotic/invasive species on the lands surrounding the Refuge, thus in order to be effective with our efforts, we must bring together a complex set of interests including private landowner, commercial, and public agencies to combat invasive species and restore native plants. Three categories of undesirable species (invasive, exotic, noxious) are found within the Refuge. Inva- sive species are alien species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, dated February 3, 1999, directs federal agencies to use relevant programs and authorities to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species, monitor invasive species infestations accurately and reliably, and promote public education on these species and methods to address them. Exotic species are those that are not native to a particular ecosystem. Service policy also directs the Refuge to try to maintain habitats Bio-agents are released to control leafy spurge. Photo Credit: free of exotic species. Noxious weeds are designated FWS by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Min- nesota Department of Agriculture as species which, when established, are destructive, competitive or  perennial sowthistle difficult to control.  common tansy Baseline information on invasive species pres-  quackgrass ence, distribution, density, etc. is crucial for setting  smooth brome priorities for control, developing management strat- Although flowering rush is not known to occur on egies, estimating impacts and evaluating manage- the Refuge, it is an imminent threat to the Refuge ment effectiveness. A long-term invasive weed aquatic resources as it is fairly abundant in the lakes mapping/monitoring program using GPS technol- around the Detroit Lakes area. Eurasian milfoil is ogy was initiated in 2005. On Tamarac NWR, there not common in the area but is a species of concern are currently numerous invasive species of concern and poses a threat in the local area. The species is and the Refuge uses an integrated approach to con- being monitored by the local Minnesota DNR. trol these weeds. Control methods have included Detroit Lake typically sees significant boat traffic, cultural (tillage, burning, cropping, mowing, haying, and many of these boats use other lakes in the etc.), chemical and biological (bio-agents) methods. greater Detroit Lakes area, including Tamarac Canada thistle, plumeless thistle, purple loosestrife, NWR, increasing the spread potential to the Ref- leafy spurge and spotted knapweed are introduced uge. species that occur on the Refuge that are classified as prohibited noxious weeds in Minnesota. Other Canada and plumeless thistle are controlled invasive species known to occur on the Refuge through chemical and mechanical means, as well as include: through competition from native seeded warm season grasses including big and little bluestem, Indi-  hybrid cattail angrass, switchgrass, etc. Purple loosestrife is  hoary alyssum controlled by hand pulling isolated plants prior to seed production or by chemical application on larger  Siberian peashrub infestations. Leafy spurge and spotted knapweed  Kentucky bluegrass are controlled primarily through the use of biologi-  yellow starthistle cal control agents. A few other invasive species are known to occur on the Refuge and the appropriate  birdsfoot trefoil control strategy is applied accordingly; however the  reed canarygrass

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 32 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

species listed above take priority due to prolifera- Refuge within the last decade. Over-browsing by tion and their threat to native plant communities. deer could lead to significant ecological ramifications, particularly when coupled with earthworm Earthworms infestation problems. Long-term over-browsing by In the Great Lakes region, native earthworm deer reduces plant cover and diversity, alters nutri- species have never been documented, and any ent and carbon cycling, and redirects succession to native species of earthworms living in the region shift future overstory composition (Dussault and were extirpated when glacial ice sheets covered the Waller 2004). The impacts of deer over-browse on Upper Midwest 11,000 to 14,000 years ago (NRRI plants can also cascade to affect species diversity, 2007). Therefore, forests of the Great Lakes Region from insects to amphibians to migratory songbirds. developed in the complete absence of earthworms. Impacts on vegetative structure and abundance For thousands of years, no earthworms existed in have been noted with deer exclosures on the Ref- this region until European settlers began arriving uge. around the mid 1800s. Zebra Mussel Researchers have documented dramatic changes The zebra mussel, a non-native mussel from Rus- in native hardwood forest ecosystems when exotic sia, has been rapidly spreading across the Midwest. earthworms invade, including loss of native under- Zebra mussels pose serious ecological and economic story plant species and tree seedlings, changes in threats to the aquatic resources of Minnesota. soil structure and declines in nutrient availability Heavy infestations can kill native mussels, impact (Hale 2004). Exotic earthworms not only alter eco- fish populations, interfere with recreation, increase system components, but they also change some of costs for industry, and alter aquatic ecosystems. the important underlying processes, such as fire, succession, and natural regeneration, that support In September 2009, both adult and young zebra the health and diversity of forest plants and animals. mussels were discovered in Pelican Lake, Ottertail In addition, research suggests the changes caused County which is approximately 20 (straight-line) by exotic earthworms may lead to a cascade of other miles from the Refuge. This is the first discovery of changes in the forest that affect small mammal, bird zebra mussel within the Red River and Ottertail and amphibian populations. Earthworm presence River watershed. Although the Refuge is a distance may also increase the impacts of herbivores like upstream from Pelican Lake, the approximation of white-tailed deer and facilitate invasions of other Tamarac NWR to this new infestation has height- exotic species, making them a potential threat to the ened the threat of zebra mussel invasion to the Ref- biodiversity and long-term stability of forest ecosystems in the region. Recent research suggests earthworms can potentially affect water quality by mobilizing phosphorus levels. The Refuge has a significant infestation of earthworms. At this time, there is no known technique for managing or eradicating these non-native earthworms. The Refuge intends to assess the earthworm distribution on the Refuge in the near future using protocol developed by researchers at the Natural Resources Research Institute in Duluth, Minnesota. Refuge staff will need to be cognizant of the potential impacts of earthworms to management success and desired future habitat conditions during all future forest planning and management on the Ref- uge. White-tailed Deer The Refuge is officially designated as a white- tailed deer management unit (251), but the Minne- sota DNR and Tamarac NWR cooperatively manage the deer herd and administer harvest regulations within the Refuge. Recently, there has been an overabundance of white-tailed deer state- wide. Relatively high densities of deer (26 to 28 Spotted knapweed. Photo Credit: FWS deer/mi2 pre-fawn survey) have occurred on the

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

uge substantially. Pelican Lake typically sees Several lakes within the surrounding area of the significant boat traffic, many of which utilize other Refuge are listed on the Minnesota Impaired Water lakes in the greater Detroit Lakes area, including list due to mercury as the pollutant. These lakes Tamarac NWR, thus increasing the threat potential include Cotton, Island, Many Point, Toad, Floyd, to the Refuge. Detroit and White Earth. The increasing presence of mercury within inland lakes has prompted the Other Forest Pests and Pathogens Minnesota Department of Health to issue a Fish Refuge staff continually monitor the health and Consumption Advisory. The advisory provides condition of the forests on the Refuge and stay guidelines regarding the size and frequency of abreast of the regional status of insects and disease which fish species can be eaten safely. No formal that affect the forests. The goal of the Refuge is to testing of fish or wildlife for the presence of contam- protect the health of our forests by preventing, inants has been conducted on the Refuge. where possible, the introduction of forest insects In 2005, the Refuge initiated an and diseases in the area. environmental site assessment at the former Job Corps Conserva- Native epidemic pests have exhibited outbreak tion Center (JCCC). The goal of this project was to behavior throughout recorded history and although identify and remove any existing environmental unpredictable, their outbreaks are expected to contaminants that were still present within the occur. However, human influence has subjected for- JCCC area. The JCCC was a complex, administered ests to exotic insect species that are prone to spec- by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, that was con- tacular outbreaks. Disturbances such as climate structed in 1965 to house, educate and train youth. change, fire suppression and even-aged forest man- The area encompassed approximately 180 acres just agement can increase the severity, frequency and north of Height of Land Lake. Although the JCCC distribution of exotic and native insects. program was terminated on the Refuge in 1969, the facilities were used by a Native American group Forest tent caterpillars, gypsy moth, jack pine until 1980, when the site was abandoned and the bud worms, Asian long-horned beetle, and emerald buildings were reclaimed, sold or demolished. ash borers (EAB), oak wilt, white pine blister rust, Asphalt driveways, concrete foundations, telephone Dutch elm disease, are just a few of the insects and pedestals, buried pipes, underground storage tanks diseases of concern to the Refuge. Currently, the sewage lagoon (presently dry) and an inactive solid emerald ash borer is the most serious forest pest waste dump remained on the site. concern in eastern U. S. It attacks and kills all ash trees. In 2009, EAB was discovered in Minnesota in Three underground storage tanks (fuel tanks) the Twin Cities area. The spread to remainder of were removed in 2005 and the soil around them was the state is imminent. Early detection of invasive tested. All soil tests were negative for benzene, insects and disease is key to effective control of ethyl-benzene, toluene, xylene, gasoline range these unwanted forest pests and pathogens. organics and diesel range organics. Two water wells were also sealed with bentonite for contaminant Contaminants prevention to the groundwater. In 2008, five injec- tion wells (septic tanks) were inspected and closed Tamarac NWR is not near any major point- by filling them with clean dirt. Concrete pads, indus- sources of pollution, and the Refuge has limited risk trial hoists and metal pipes were also removed from from spills. Instead, the Refuge is more likely to be the site. In 2009, a site assessment by Tetra Tech. impacted from air pollution that may originate from was conducted and concluded that the landfill other sources well beyond the Refuge boundaries. needed to be tested to determine remediation action. Additional soil testing for lead and asbestos Mercury is a pervasive contaminant across Min- around the building demonstration sites was also nesota, necessitating a statewide Fish Consumption recommended and one additional septic tank was Advisory from the Minnesota Department of identified for closure. The work is scheduled for Health. Air pollution is the major source of mercury 2010. contamination to Minnesota’s lakes and rivers. About 70 percent of the mercury in the air is the result of emissions from coal combustion, mining, Climate Change and Tamarac NWR and the incineration of mercury-containing prod- Various forest ecologists with expertise in distur- ucts, the remaining 30 percent is derived from natu- bance regimes and potential climate change impacts ral emissions. Only about 10 percent of Minnesota’s have suggested that this area will likely see signifi- mercury contamination originates from Minnesota cant ecological changes in the forest landscape and emissions, however, 90 percent of Minnesota’s emis- associated habitats for wildlife. One ecologist goes sions are deposited in other states and countries so far as to state “the only forest that may be left in (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2005).

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 34 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Minnesota after climate change runs its course, The increase of carbon dioxide within the earth’s would be located in the Boundary Waters along the atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in Canadian border in extreme northeastern Minne- surface temperature commonly referred to as global sota.” Ironically, a study conducted by University of warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation Minnesota Professor John Tester about 15 years planning for national wildlife Refuges, carbon ago documented that just a subtle change in abiotic sequestration constitutes the primary climate- factors, such as temperature and precipitation, related impact that refuges can affect in a small impacted these major biomes. The study repre- way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon sented a gradient of ecotones within a 50-mile east- Sequestration Research and Development” defines west transect that transitioned from boreal forest to carbon sequestration as “...the capture and secure deciduous forest to brushlands to tallgrass prairie. storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted The difference in temperature between the boreal to or remain in the atmosphere.” forest and tallgrass prairie was a mere 4 degrees Celsius. Significant differences were documented in Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon plant and animal species. sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts – grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert – For example, starting in the boreal forest and are effective both in preventing carbon emission and ending in the tallgrass prairie, four different grouse acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric car- species with specific habitat needs were documented bon dioxide. The Department of Energy report’s (Spruce Grouse, Ruffed Grouse, Sharp-tailed conclusions noted that ecosystem protection is Grouse and Greater Prairie Chicken). The same pat- important to carbon sequestration and may reduce tern was noted in small mammals and other species or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the ter- groups. All of the future climate models predict this restrial biosphere. same area will warm by at least 4 degrees Celsius in the next 50 years. The ultimate question is what’s in Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the store for wildlife and their associated habitats in the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife future with potential climate changes? How does a refuges and management areas. The actions pro- land manager plan for future habitat management posed in this CCP would conserve or restore land for wildlife within this tension zone, facing uncer- and habitat, and would thus retain existing carbon tainty with regard to climate change? sequestration. This in turn contributes positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate In addition, the Refuge was established in the change. mid-1930s as a result of the reinvigorated national waterfowl restoration program by the U. S. Fish & One Service activity in particular – prescribed Wildlife Service to restore the nesting grounds of burning – releases carbon dioxide directly to the the waterfowl resource. This was during the Dust atmosphere from the biomass consumed during Bowl Era when the prairie potholes of the Dakotas combustion. However, there is actually no net loss of were dry, thus significant waterfowl use was pres- carbon, since new vegetation quickly germinates ent in the shallow lakes of Tamarac NWR and the and sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and transition zone of Minnesota. Since that time, pre- sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal cipitation and water levels have returned to prairies, amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Dai et al. luring waterfowl populations back to the prairie pot- 2006). Overall, there should be little or no net holes. Dr. Carter Johnson of South Dakota State change in the amount of carbon sequestered at University suggests the most productive habitat for Tamarac NWR from any of the proposed manage- breeding waterfowl are poised to shift from the prai- ment alternatives. rie potholes to wetter eastern and northern fringes Several impacts of climate change have been where many wetlands have already been drained identified that may need to be considered and (Johnson et al. 2005). How important will the transi- addressed in the future: tion zone of Minnesota be under the predicted climate models?  Habitat available for cold water fish such as trout and salmon in lakes and streams could be Midwest Climate Change Impacts reduced. The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an  Forests may change, with some species shifting order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies their range northward or dying out, and other under its direction that have land management trees moving in to take their place. responsibilities to consider potential climate change  Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breeding impacts as part of long range planning endeavors. habitat due to stronger and more frequent droughts.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

increases in the number of days with excessive moisture in the eastern portion of the Great Lakes basin. Scenarios of Future Climate During the 21st century, models project that temperatures will increase throughout the Mid- west, and at a greater rate than has been observed in the 20th century. Even over the northern portion of the region, where warming has been the largest, an accelerated warming trend is projected for the 21st century, with temperatures increasing by 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 6 degrees Celsius). The aver- Canadian tiger swallowtail butterfly. Photo Credit: R. Hickner age minimum temperature is likely to increase as much as 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1 degree Celsius) more than the maximum tem-  Changes in the timing of migration and nesting perature. Precipitation is likely to continue its could put some birds out of sync with the life upward trend, at a slightly accelerated rate; 10 cycles of their prey species. to 30 percent increases are projected across much of the region. Despite the increases in  Animal and insect species historically found far- precipitation, increases in temperature and ther south may colonize new areas to the north other meteorological factors are likely to lead to as winter climatic conditions moderate. a substantial increase in evaporation, causing a The managers and resource specialists responsi- soil moisture deficit, reduction in lake and river ble for the Refuge need to be aware of the possibil- levels, and more drought-like conditions in ity of change due to global warming. When feasible, much of the region. In addition, increases in the documenting long-term vegetation, species, and proportion of precipitation coming from heavy hydrologic changes should become a part of and extreme precipitation are very likely. research and monitoring programs. Adjustments in land management direction may be necessary over Midwest Key Issues: the course of time to adapt to a changing climate. 1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based The following paragraphs are excerpts from the transportation and recreation are all climate- 2000 report: Climate Change Impacts on the sensitive issues affecting the region. Despite the United States: The Potential Consequences of Cli- projected increase in precipitation, increased mate Variability and Change, produced by the evaporation due to higher summer air tempera- National Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory tures is likely to lead to reduced levels in the committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to help the US Global Change Great Lakes. Of 12 models used to assess this Research Program fulfill its mandate under the question, 11 suggest significant decreases in lake levels while one suggests a small increase. Global Change Research Act of 1990. These excerpts are from the section of the report focused The total range of the 11 models' projections is upon the eight-state Midwest Region. less than a 1-foot increase to more than a 5-foot decrease. A 5-foot (1.5- meter) reduction would Observed Climate Trends lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction in outflow to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake levels Over the 20th century, the northern portion of cause reduced hydropower generation down- the Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes, stream, with reductions of up to 15 percent by has warmed by almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 2050. A degrees Celsius), while the southern portion, n increase in demand for water across the region at the same time as net flows along the Ohio River valley, has cooled by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius). decrease is of particular concern. There is a pos- Annual precipitation has increased, with many sibility of increased national and international tension related to increased pressure for water of the changes quite substantial, including as much as 10 to 20 percent increases over the 20th diversions from the Lakes as demands for water century. Much of the precipitation has resulted increase. For smaller lakes and rivers, reduced flows are likely to cause water quality issues to from an increased rise in the number of days with heavy and very heavy precipitation events. become more acute. In addition, the projected There have been moderate to very large increase in very heavy precipitation events will

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 36 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

likely lead to increased flash flooding and ties, and using integrated pest management, worsen agricultural and other non-point source conservation tillage, and new farm technologies pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash are additional options. There is also the poten- pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water tial for shifting or expanding the area where levels are likely to make water-based transpor- certain crops are grown if climate conditions tation more difficult with increases in the costs become more favorable. Weather conditions of navigation of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this during the growing season are the primary fac- increase will likely be offset as reduced ice cover tor in year-to-year differences in corn and soy- extends the navigation season. Shoreline dam- bean yields. Droughts and floods result in large age due to high lake levels is likely to decrease yield reductions; severe droughts, like the 40 to 80 percent due to reduced water levels. drought of 1988, cause yield reductions of over 30 percent. Reliable seasonal forecasts are Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river lev- likely to help farmers adjust their practices els would require adaptations such as re-engi- from year to year to respond to such events. neering of ship docks and locks for transportation and recreation. If flows decrease 3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosys- while demand increases, international commis- tems sions focusing on Great Lakes water issues are The Upper Midwest has a unique combination likely to become even more important in the of soil and climate that allows for abundant future. Improved forecasts and warnings of coniferous tree growth. Higher temperatures extreme precipitation events could help reduce and increased evaporation will likely reduce some related impacts. boreal forest acreage, and make current forest- lands more susceptible to pests and diseases. It 2. Agricultural Shifts is likely that the southern transition zone of the Agriculture is of vital importance to this region, boreal forest will be susceptible to expansion of the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a temperate forests, which in turn will have to capacity to adapt to moderate differences in compete with other land use pressures. How- growing season climate, and it is likely that ever, warmer weather (coupled with beneficial agriculture would be able to continue to adapt. effects of increased CO ), are likely to lead to an With an increase in the length of the growing 2 season, double cropping, the practice of plant- increase in tree growth rates on marginal for- ing a second crop after the first is harvested, is estlands that are currently temperature-lim- likely to become more prevalent. The CO fertil- ited. Most climate models indicate that higher 2 air temperatures will cause greater evaporation ization effect is likely to enhance plant growth and hence reduced soil moisture, a situation and contribute to generally higher yields. The conducive to forest fires. As the 21st century largest increases are projected to occur in the progresses, there will be an increased likelihood northern areas of the region, where crop yields of greater environmental stress on both decidu- are currently temperature limited. However, ous and coniferous trees, making them suscepti- yields are not likely to increase in all parts of ble to disease and pest infestation, likely the region. For example, in the southern por- resulting in increased tree mortality. tions of Indiana and Illinois, corn yields are likely to decline, with 10-20 percent decreases As water temperatures in lakes increase, major projected in some locations. Consumers are changes in freshwater ecosystems will very likely to pay lower prices due to generally likely occur, such as a shift from cold water fish increased yields, while most producers are species, such as trout, to warmer water species, likely to suffer reduced profits due to declining such as bass and catfish. Warmer water is also prices. Increased use of pesticides and herbi- likely to create an environment more suscepti- cides are very likely to be required and to pres- ble to invasions by non-native species. Runoff of ent new challenges. excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers is likely Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use to increase due to the increase in heavy precipi- skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding tation events. This, coupled with warmer lake new varieties for the new growing conditions. temperatures, is likely to stimulate the growth Farmers can then choose varieties that are bet- of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to the ter attuned to the expected climate. It is likely detriment of other living things. Declining lake that plant breeders will need to use all the tools levels are likely to cause large impacts to the of plant breeding, including genetic engineer- current distribution of wetlands. There is some ing, in adapting to climate change. Changing chance that some wetlands could gradually planting and harvest dates and planting densi- migrate, but in areas where their migration is

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

limited by the topography, they would disap-  Old Indian Hiking Trail on County Road 29 pear. Changes in bird populations and other winds through maple-basswood and diverse for- native wildlife have already been linked to est for approximately 1.5 miles. increasing temperatures and more changes are likely in the future. Wildlife populations are par-  All roads and trails in the Visitor Use Area are ticularly susceptible to climate extremes due to open for hiking year-round and snowshoeing the effects of drought on their food sources. during winter months. Roads and trails in the Sanctuary Area are open for hiking, snowshoe- Administrative Facilities ing or skiing from September through Febru- ary. The primary facility on Tamarac NWR is a combined Visitor Center and Refuge Headquarters  Blackbird Auto Tour Drive, a 5-mile long, self- located on Highway 26. The Visitor Center portion guided interpretive trail which travels through features an exhibit area, an observation deck, a book forested areas and follows the edge of lakes, shop and an auditorium/theater. The Headquarters marshes and bogs. The tour is open from April portion contains office space for most of the Refuge 15 through December 15, road conditions per- staff. Workshops, garages, storage buildings, and mitting. additional offices are located just east of the Refuge  Two observation decks, each with spotting Headquarters. scopes and interpretive panels. Visitor Services  Trails and parking areas available for hunting waterfowl, deer and small game. Between 60,000 to 85,000 visitors per year visit  Boat access available at Tamarac, Rice, Lost, Tamarac NWR. The number of people that visit per year is dependent upon many factors, some which Waboose, Blackbird, Height of Land, Cotton, we control, such as the number of programs offered Egg, Two Island, Day, Pine and Carmen Lakes. and outreach efforts.  Information kiosks at the Visitor Center, the southern entrance on Highway 29 and the west- The Refuge’s Visitor Center is open year-round. In the winter and spring, the Visitor Center is open ern entrance on Highway 26. Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. In the  The Chippewa site, along the banks of the Otter summer and fall, the hours are extended to 10 a.m. Tail River, offers tables, grills and restrooms. to 5 p.m. on weekends.  The Pine Lake Ski Trail is open seasonally and Attractions include informational and interpre- offers two occasionally groomed loops approxi- tive displays such as a children’s touch table, a Bald mately 2 and 6 miles. A parking lot and trail Eagle’s nest, a ‘sounds of the Refuge’ display, Trum- head map are located on County Road 29. peter Swan mounts and more.  Eleven historic monuments. The Visitor Center also features a 12-minute orientation to the Refuge theater presentation. Current Management Other facilities include: Consistent with its authorizing legislation, Tama- rac NWR conducts a broad array of wildlife and habitat management activities while providing for a variety of visitor services. Efforts to balance competing demands for natural resources, wildlife, and protection from environmental hazards are crucial. Refuge management has made significant progress in implementing planned activities over the years since establishment. Refuge planning and management, however, are a continual work in progress and evolve over time, depending on feedback and monitoring as well as changing values, needs, and priorities in wildlife management at the Refuge, regional, and national scale. Habitat Management Land management on the Tamarac NWR has Tamarac NWR Visitor Center. Photo Credit: FWS shifted over time from the wholesale logging of the

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 38 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac NWR has the unique ability to manage for biological integrity based upon the ecosystem approach, without overemphasizing single species management. From the time of Refuge establishment, until the mid 1960s when acquisition boundaries were complete, much of the Refuge management focused on land acquisition and management of the waterfowl resources. From 1979 to 1992, the Refuge was managed under the guidance of the Tamarac NWR Mas- ter Plan. The primary management objective under this plan was the production and maintenance of waterfowl. This often was thought of as the more water that could be placed on the landscape, the Bald Eagle and eaglet. Photo Credit: D. Braud more waterfowl that could be produced. Secondary objectives were directed toward maintaining an eco- late 1800s, to pioneer settlement and agricultural logical balance between resident species their habi- attempts, to the edge management of early wildlife tat and providing public opportunities such as management, and on to the landscape and distur- hunting, fishing and wildlife observation. bance ecology of today. Currently, Tamarac NWR operates under the As our knowledge and understanding of land- guidance of the Refuge Management Plan (1992). scape ecology and wildlife management evolve over This plan put forth the current mission for Tamarac time, and as circumstances and values “on the NWR: ground” change, the direction of habitat management tends to change as well. By keeping the “Wild- “Manage Refuge habitats to maximize biodiver- life First” motto at the forefront of refuge sity, with emphasis on endangered species and management the Tamarac NWR is adhering to the waterfowl production and maintenance, while refuge purpose. Although the Refuge’s original providing visitor opportunities, compatible with focus was on waterfowl (ducks and geese), other Refuge purposes, that produce high quality migratory birds, such as forest passerines, and resi- education, interpretation and recreation experi- dent wildlife, such as wolves and deer, have received ences.” an increasing emphasis in Refuge management over Management emphasis of this plan focused on the years. In addition, a more holistic approach has furthering the purposes for which Tamarac NWR been proposed for the future through ecosystem was established, primarily production and mainte- management principles and philosophies. The Ref- nance of migratory waterfowl, with only endangered uge will accomplish these purpose(s) and mission by species having a higher priority than waterfowl. ensuring that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge are maintained The goals and the specific objectives stated in the and, where appropriate, restored. 1992 Refuge Management Plan were pursued by an aggressive habitat management program involving The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological wetland, forest, grassland and fire management and integrity policy (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service a diverse public use program to provide a wide vari- 2001) directs the agency to “maintain and restore, ety of recreational, interpretive and educational pro- where appropriate, the biological integrity, diversity grams. These Refuge habitat goals were essentially and environmental health of the National Wildlife divided and managed via three succinct manage- Refuge System (NWRS). Biological diversity can be ment disciplines through individual step down plans: referred to as the variety of life including its pro- forest management plan (1994), grassland manage- cesses; whereas, biological integrity refers to the ment plan (1990) and marsh & water management “biotic composition, structure and functioning at plan (1992), which provided more specificity to habi- genetic, organism and community levels comparable tat management. with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms Wetland Management and communities. Environmental health in the pol- In the early years of Refuge management, the icy refers to the composition, structure, and func- management philosophy focused on constructing tioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic features water control structures to create more waterfowl comparable with the historic conditions, including habitat. Refuge management philosophies have the natural abiotic processes that shape the environ- changed, and today, wetlands are being managed ment. Unlike many locations in the upper Midwest, based on historical distribution and hydrological

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

regimes to the extent possible. The basic purpose of as possible and stabilizing water levels throughout water level management on the Refuge has been to the growing season stabilizing water levels so that enhance the area’s natural ability to grow wild rice the growth of wild rice would benefit waterfowl by and maintain aquatic ecosystems for the benefit of providing brood cover and food for migrants. migrating waterfowl and other wetland dependent species. Since that time, management efforts have attempted to allow these natural fluctuations to A total of 30 shallow lakes are managed on the occur in order to sustain the long-term viability of Refuge using one of three management strategies: wild rice production, particularly in the Rice, Black- bird, Flat and Little Flat Lakes. Wild rice evolved  Active water manipulation through a cyclic process of water level fluctuations  Removal of problem beaver dams as necessary depending upon precipitation, runoff, and evaporation in any given year. For example, in a 10-year  No water level manipulation period, there were likely a couple drought years, a The 1992 Marsh and Water Management Plan couple flood years, and some years with water levels clearly articulated which strategy will be used for in between these extremes. Recent research (Car- each lake and subsequently, lakes with active water son 2002) indicates stable water levels over time manipulation have “target” water levels prescribed jeopardize the long-term viability of a wild rice dom- for different time periods throughout the year. inated lake by allowing undesirable species to out- According to the plan, eleven lakes/pools were to be compete wild rice. addressed annually. However, only six lakes have management capability via water control structures Under today’s strategy, annual water level pre- and only four of those have been actively manipu- scriptions are not rigid, but rather targets that provide the flexibility for wetland enhancement and lated in recent years. With the exception of South management of aquatic ecosystemsl. The primary Tamarac, which is controlled by a pumping station, intent is to allow water to flow through naturally all lakes are managed through natural gravity flow during peak periods such as spring run-off or heavy and runoff and are considered gravity flow systems. rain events, rather than restrict the flow. It is recog- Throughout Refuge history, water control struc- nized that these water control structures do pose a tures have been used to manipulate water levels to fish barrier problem, but that seems to be an advan- maximize wild rice production. Initially, as each tage with common carp in the Ottertail River sys- water control structure became functional eleva- tems just below the dam in Hubbel Pond Wildlife tions were established for each lake based on flood- Management Area. ing a majority of the pool to a depth of 4 feet or less. Later some of the approved elevations changed Open Landscape Management based on observations and experiences of Refuge The Refuge currently manages about 2,800 acres staff. Historically, approved levels were generally (6.5 percent of the Refuge) as upland grass/brush held constant throughout the year. From 1959 to the habitat. Most of these areas are remnants of the mid 1980s, management tactics focused on moving early settler clearings or small farms which followed high spring runoff through Refuge lakes as rapidly the virgin timber harvest or the late 1800s. Early management of grassland “openings” in the landscape was through intensive farming efforts. Food plots were established as part of an aggressive goose restoration program in the 1950s. Once Can- ada Geese were successfully restored in the area, many of these food plots were slowly converted to dense nesting cover (DNC) for the benefit of nesting waterfowl. In recent years, many of these DNC fields have been converted to stands of warm season grasses and forbs, and most have been maintained primarily by prescribed burning. A plan to continue converting half of extant Ref- uge grassland to forest was proposed in 1984, but not approved, and instead a decision was made to rehabilitate existing grasslands and reclaim additional grassland habitats through timber removal Tamarac NWR wetland. Photo Credit: George Read and fire use. In 1981, a prescribed fire program was initiated as a tool to maintain and rehabilitate grasslands. The primary goal of the current Grassland

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 40 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Management Plan (1990) was to provide a variety of water for pairs [waterfowl] and enhance marsh veg- quality grasslands, by 1999, totaling 2,500 acres and etation in wetlands. eventually 5,000 acres for the benefit of nesting waterfowl. Additional goals were to: This tract was chosen because of the relative openness of the area and the presence of a remnant 1. Strive for a 4.6 to 1 forest to grassland ratio parcel (52 acres) of native big bluestem that sug- which would represent habitats observed by gested that the area historically developed under Refuge founders. some open landscape conditions. The relative open- 2. Provide habitat suitable for reestablishment of ness of several other anthropogenic grassland fields that were already established adjacent to the unit Prairie Grouse populations, either by natural immigration or eventual restocking was significant in the tract’s selection. Indeed, recent research indicates this 52-acre remnant par- 3. Provide openings in unbroken forest cover to cel developed under “open’ grassland conditions, but benefit Woodcock, deer, grouse and other resi- this was the only area within entire 1,000-acre Tract dent wildlife. indicative of this condition. In addition, most experts Many grassland areas are small and scattered would agree that big bluestem is ubiquitous to a throughout the Refuge. These patches are too small variety of habitat types including forest habitats in to be of value to most area-sensitive grassland bird northern Minnesota. species and some upland nesting waterfowl due to Prior the creation of the 1000-acre Tract, the unit their juxtaposition in a forested landscape. Cur- was dominated by aspen with varying densities of rently, there are 83 designated grassland units on mature burr oak and scattered white and red pines the Refuge with an average size of 17 acres (median present within the stands. Also present on the of 7.6 acres). Sixty-eight percent (57 of 83) of these higher ridges was a closed canopy community of grassland units are less than 20 acres in size, and jack pine with paper birch inclusions. A complex of only ten of these grasslands are greater than 40 more than 100 wetland basins and 52 acres of old acres in size with the largest tract consisting of 88 settler field openings were also present. Logging acres. Historically, there probably was not any excluded many of the oaks and large red and white upland grass habitat at the Refuge during the era pines along the ridges. These trees were left as immediately prior to European settlement. How- future seed trees should Prairie Grouse not return. ever, grass/brush habitats would likely fall within the range of natural variability due to catastrophic Essentially, this management adopted a “cookie- disturbances and may have been present for short cutter” approach where a block of forest habitat was periods of time until succession quickly progressed. fragmented within an interior forested landscape. The intensity and timing of prescribed burns have The 1000-acre Tract only stimulated the shrub species present on the One attempt to create a sizeable, contiguous unit unit rather than eliminated or reduced them as orig- of grassland/brushland that could be managed long inally intended. Overall, this tract is not contribut- term by prescribed fire to enhance habitat for ing greatly to regional or even local waterfowl upland nesting ducks, especially Mallards, and re- colonization of Prairie Grouse was conceived through establishment of the 1,000-acre Tract. Fol- lowing the logging of the native red and white pine stands in the late 1800s, subsequent fires and settlement of the Refuge, Pinnated and Sharp-tailed Grouse were observed on the Refuge. The Pinnated Grouse persisted into the 1940s and Sharp-tailed Grouse until the 1950s when the developing second growth forest closed in eliminating suitable habitat for them. Nearly a hundred years later (late 1980s) significant portions of the 1,000-acre Tract were logged a second time. This tract was a forested/wetland area in the central portion of the Refuge that was cleared of most the trees by 1990 to create a brushy grassland area of 1,000 acres that would be burned at least 3 times from 1990-1995 to kill woody regeneration and to stimulate native grasses and forbs on uplands, as well as kill willows, create open Tamarck NWR. Photo Credit: FWS

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

populations. Tamarac NWR is positioned in a for- duction often had undesirable outcomes even among ested landscape and Sharp-tailed and Pinnated those species targeted to benefit, such as overpopu- Grouse have not pioneered or re-established into lation or overcrowding and thus susceptibility to dis- the area. A new management scenario for this area, ease and other problems, e.g., outbreaks of botulism either through natural succession or active restora- or avian cholera. tion, will be considered in this CCP. At the same time, croplands often came at the Forest Openings expense of more robust, sustainable, and diverse Thirty-two forest openings, totaling 63 acres, natural communities and the non-game organisms were established in the northern portion of the Ref- that inhabit them. In recent years, the Service and uge from 1990 to 1991. These openings are very sim- wildlife biologists in other agencies have tended to ilar to the smaller grassland units mentioned discourage grain and crop cultivation. Today, only previously but are smaller in size. The openings one small cropland field is maintained on the Refuge were typically placed in a variety of forest types and for the benefit of watchable wildlife. It is located off generally centered on recently abandoned logging the Blackbird Auto tour route. All other cropfields decks and ranged in size from 1 to 3 acres with an within the Refuge have been converted to grassland, irregular shape. In most cases, these openings rep- many of which will ultimately be converted to forest. resent a “hard edge” or transition from grass to for- In recent years, the management philosophy at est without much woody vegetation within the Tamarac NWR, paralleling that of other refuges opening itself. These openings were created out of a around the country, has become more oriented need to provide early successional stages and edge toward fostering or simulating natural processes, habitat within a continuous forest habitat primarily like wildland fire, to achieve desired landscapes and for the benefit or ruffed grouse, woodcock, bear and to restore scarce habitats. white-tailed deer. Forest Management Maintenance of these openings included tree The long range goal identified in the current For- removal, prescribed fire, herbicide, tillage, grading, est Management Plan (USFWS 1994) was to pro- mowing and seeding to stop woody invasion. Pre- vide diverse patterns of vegetation and openings scribed fire, herbicide and mowing have been the throughout the entire Refuge. The goal was to be primary treatments in recent years, although inva- accomplished through management ranging from sive species, particularly thistle species, have preservation to very active forest management via invaded many of these openings thus requiring addi- timber harvest to promote early successional tional mechanical or chemical treatment. With lim- stages. In general, the current purposes of forest ited budgets, these openings can be very costly to management are to provide protection and generate maintain. There are enough natural openings on the new habitat areas for endangered species, as well as landscape; therefore anthropogenic openings do not managing for a variety of forest species, through the need to be maintained. The natural openings on the use of sustained yield principles of forest manage- landscape provide enough habitat on the landscape ment. Under the 1994 plan, the development of open for these relatively common species and the Refuge crowned canopies and block clearcuts to provide should focus on maintaining “unbroken” or non- habitat for a diversity of wildlife was promoted, fragmented forest habitat. Temporary openings cre- along with the growth and retention of abundant ated through on-going silvicultural practices on the tree cavities for cavity nesting waterfowl and other Refuge provide the same amount of habitat if not birds. more at no additional cost to the Refuge and require no maintenance. Management of upland and lowland hardwoods was to be directed toward mixed, uneven-aged Croplands stands with all age classes represented to insure a Similar to the “edge-management” philosophy of continuous supply of natural cavities. From the mid- the grasslands, wildlife biologists (particularly 1980s through the late 1990s, timber harvest of waterfowl managers) for decades encouraged the aspen on the Refuge was accelerated due to an cultivation of crops, particularly grains, as a nutri- increase in aspen pulp markets. From 1987 to 1990, tious food source both for upland game and migrat- over a thousand acres of aspen was harvested per ing ducks and geese. When national wildlife refuges year, primarily through clear-cutting practices. In were established, agricultural lands were acquired order to alter the age class diversity, some of these and often maintained to produce food for wildlife. aspen regenerating sites were mowed with a However, by the 1980s, wildlife biologists generally, hydroaxe or knocked down with a roller chopper; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specifically, however, this practice was fairly limited. Forest were adopting more holistic approaches to wildlife management objectives associated with these management. They realized that artificial food pro- efforts were primarily concerned with managing for

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 42 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

duction. The Refuge has the unique opportunity to manage the land for wildlife management purposes, which may include various management strategies such as preservation, timber harvesting, prescribed fire, etc. The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act and subsequent Biological Integrity policy provide the foundation for this determination, along with the land’s inherent capability. The distribution and abundance of cover types are significantly altered from pre-settlement times primarily due to timber harvest, farming, grazing and fire suppression. Consequently, in many forest patches, the compositional and structural patterns that now exist are considerably different relative to pre-European benchmark conditions. For example, many of the timber harvest efforts on the Refuge have converted climax communities or later seral stages to early successional stages. Subsequent management has attempted to maintain them at the Winter day at Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: Pam Lehmann young stage while fire suppression has essentially Callaway eliminated a natural process within fire dependent plant communities. These efforts have created an early successional habitats on a rotational basis for imbalance of cover types within the native plant Golden-winged Warblers, American Woodcock and communities in relation to the range of natural vari- Eastern Towhee. Timber harvest of mixed upland ation. hardwoods was through selective harvest tech- Although forest communities have changed in niques where single trees or clusters of trees were composition across much of northern Minnesota, harvest from within a larger stand of trees. opportunities exist for sustainable management and Some clear-cutting of decadent jack pine conservation of these communities. Large tracts of occurred in recent history, followed by prescribed native plant communities provide opportunities for fire in an attempt regenerate jack pine. These ecosystem management, through silviculture, fire efforts were met with limited success. Selective har- and hydrological management that mimic natural vest of red pine occurred infrequently as well, pri- cycles in forests and forested wetlands, thereby, marily as a thinning operation to increase basal area perpetuating all of the beneficial functions that of the remaining red pines. For the most part, white native plant communities provide. Specifically, on pine has been preserved on the Refuge to provide Tamarac NWR management efforts include the res- nesting trees for bald eagles. Although harvest toration of these native plant communities, includ- strategies exist in the Forest Management Plan for ing the composition, structure and ecological lowland hardwoods and lowland conifers, these processes associated with these communities. cover types have been left relatively undisturbed. Habitat Restoration Specific management strategies for each of the major cover types were identified in the 1994 plan. Many of the management efforts on the Refuge focus on restoring ecosystems, wildlife habitats and Representative areas of all forest cover types populations that have declined or have been com- were allowed to succeed to mature forest with no pletely lost. Since the inception of the National active management in an effort to insure the needs Wildlife Refuge System’s biological integrity policy of all wildlife species were being considered. These in 2001, increasing emphasis has been placed on specific areas include the Wilderness Area, restoring native ecosystems and their associated Research Natural Areas and “Old Growth Unit”. natural processes. Where feasible, management Although the “Old Growth Unit” really does not that restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes meet true old growth criteria in a true sense of the or function to achieve Refuge purpose(s) is favored; term, it was an area set aside to be managed as a however, it may be necessary to modify the fre- diverse forested area which possesses a high proba- quency and timing of natural processes at the Ref- bility of becoming, over time, acceptable habitat for uge scale to fulfill Refuge purpose(s) or to interior forest birds. contribute to biological integrity at larger landscape scales. Endangered plants and animals, as well as Currently, there is no mandate that the NWRS rare communities, are the highest contribution that harvest trees or manage specifically for timber pro-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Tamarac can make to preservation of local and land- Wildlife Management scape levels of biological integrity. Wildlife population management is predicated on The boreal hardwood forest in Minnesota, partic- the fact that habitat is the most critical factor limit- ularly the coniferous component, is becoming a rare ing a desired species response. Therefore, most ref- and unique habitat and the preservation and resto- uges focus on managing the habitats rather than the ration of these systems helps the Refuge adhere to wildlife species. Wildlife management on national the biological integrity policy. Restoration of endan- wildlife refuges has evolved “from managing for a gered species (ie: Bald Eagles and Trumpeter few species to managing for many species using nat- Swans), as well as rare communities (ie: jack pine ural processes” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service barrens, red and white pine cover types, etc), has 1999). Today, many refuges focus on restoring land and will continue to be at the forefront of manage- to certain desired conditions through direct habitat ment at Tamarac. The majority of the habitats on management for the benefit of wildlife, rather than the Refuge have been modified by humans to some setting specific population objectives. Emphasis is extant; however, most of these habitats are not placed on maintaining or restoring native plan com- degraded and could be managed as intact ecosys- munities that sustain the area’s biological diversity tems, with potential for restoration near the historic at the landscape scale. range of natural variation rather than an arbitrary Predator and Exotic Wildlife Management point in time, such as pre-settlement conditions. Tamarac NWR has a trapping program, adminis- Given the continually changing environmental tered through a 1991 Trapping Plan, with the pri- conditions and landscape patterns of the past and mary purpose to control predation on ground- present (e.g., rapid development, fire suppression, nesting birds. Trapping also helps control the num- climate change), relying on natural processes may ber of muskrat and beaver which cause damage to not be feasible or always the best management roads and water control structures. The plan pro- strategy for conserving wildlife resources. Uncer- vides specific guidance for administering the recre- tainty about the future requires that a refuge man- ational/commercial trapping program of the White age within a natural range of variability rather than Earth Band of Objiwa on the Refuge, and contains emulating an arbitrary point in time. This approach guidelines for other trapping by Refuge staff or maintains processes that allow species, genetic other permittees. strains, and natural communities to evolve within changing conditions, rather than trying to maintain The Refuge has a trapping history that dates stability. back to the time of Refuge establishment. Starting around 1975, the program was modified such that only enrolled members of Minnesota Objiwa were Fish and Wildlife Management and able to obtain a permit. Non-tribal members may be Monitoring offered trapping opportunities if the alternate list of tribal applicants is exhausted (pending Refuge man- Fish and Wildlife Management ager discretion). Trapping of beaver, muskrat, Fishery Management mink, raccoon, red fox, coyote and otter is authorized under the trapping plan. Low fur prices in The goal of the Refuge fisheries program is to recent years have diminished interest in trapping on provide and maintain a diverse, yet balanced, fish the Refuge and as a result fewer furbearers have population capable of supporting a quality sport been taken in recent years. Beaver and muskrat fishery. Lakes currently supporting catchable sizes comprise most of the harvest on an annual basis. of game fish (and open to public fishing) in most years include: Lost, Two Island, Wauboose, Black- The Refuge is divided into seven zones with only bird, North Tamarac and Pine. The Minnesota DNR one authorized trapper per zone. On those portions currently stocks Wauboose and North Tamarac lying within the White Earth Reservation, permit- Lakes with walleye fry on an every-other year cycle. tees are governed by seasons, bag limits, methods of Likewise, the White Earth Tribal Natural take and license requirements established by the Resources Department stocks walleye fry in Lost White Earth Tribal Council. On the remainder of and Teacracker lakes on a similar cycle. The Minne- the Refuge, regulations of the Minnesota DNR are sota DNR and White Earth Tribal Natural applicable. The trapping season typically runs from Resources Department routinely conduct fish sur- mid-October through April each year. veys on these lakes that are stocked. The LaCrosse Fisheries Resource Office (USFWS) has conducted Fish and Wildlife Monitoring fish survey assessments on some of the other prior- In support of the Service’s mission, the National ity lakes within the Refuge on a five year rotation. Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 44 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Improvement Act of 1997, specifically directs the Service to “...monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.” It is nearly impractical for most refuges to monitor all species within a given refuge, therefore refuges must prioritize monitoring efforts. Ideally, guidance for priori- tizing inventory and monitoring is derived directly from management objectives established in the CCP and HMP, which incorporate the Refuge Sys- tem mission, refuge purpose, the refuge’s role as a part of the NWRS, refuge resources of concern (both wildlife and habitat), ecosystem function and integrity (i.e.: native plant community intactness and their natural processes), and the context of the surrounding landscape. The Refuge staff currently conduct approximately 33 surveys on an annual basis that are guided through an approved 1992 Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP). The station’s IMP identifies and prioritizes survey objectives and includes a set of approved survey protocols. Obtaining lake samples for the Tamarac NWR water quality monitoring program. Photo Credit: FWS Four basic types of inventories are conducted on Tamarac NWR: chemistry parameters for 11 lakes and 7 stream  basic species lists through presence/absence sites within the boundaries on a weekly basis detection throughout the ice-free period. These water quality assessments are also incorporated in evaluation of  qualitative surveys lacking statistical vigor the water quality in the entire Red River Basin.  quantitative surveys characterized by a high level of statistical vigor Climate Change  cooperative surveys which follow predeter- In 2009, the Refuge joined a partnership with the mined protocols established by their respective Terrestrial Wetland Global Change Research Net- work (TWGCRN) via Upper Midwest Environmen- coordinating offices or agencies. tal Sciences Center (UMESC) to begin to address The surveys within the Refuge’s IMP are gener- the needs of the FWS and the Refuge regarding cli- ally conducted by Refuge staff with some assistance mate change and understanding effects and options from Refuge volunteers. within regional, national, and international con- texts.Tamarac NWR functions as a research node in Studies and Investigations the TWGCRN, a growing network of U.S. and The intent of additonal studies and investigation Canadian scientists, organizations, and research beyond routine monitoring is to promote research sites using multidisciplinary methods to assess the (or investigation) that relates to a specific refuge impacts of climate change across a vital portion of management concern and uses the results to inform North America and management options for miti- management decisions (applied research). Tamarac gating negative effects. The primary objective is to NWR recognizes the important and much needed implement a long-term, integrated assessment of role research has in the management of federal the effects of climate on a set of indicators of land- lands. The following paragraphs describe a few of scape conditions at Tamarac NWR via installation of the studies and investigations (research) that are digital sound recorders, water-level loggers, and either ongoing or have taken place in recent years. temperature loggers at ten individual wetlands. This study allows the Refuge to obtain crucial infor- Water Quality mation on the status of Refuge biodiversity (using To address water quality concerns, the Refuge birds and amphibians as indicators) relative to cli- initiated a water quality monitoring program in matic, hydrologic, and habitat conditions inside and 2007. outside the Refuge. It enables the Refuge staff to manage terrestrial and aquatic conditions within the Currently, the Refuge, in cooperation with the Refuge to maximize conservation benefits and to Tamarac Interpretative Association and Minnesota identify essential habitat connectivity to areas out- Pollution Control Agency, monitors various water side the Refuge so Refuge staff can collaborate with

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

partners and landowners to maximize conservation weed biological control agents. These results will be benefits at larger landscape scales. used to formulate a more comprehensive integrated weed management scheme for spotted knapweed Pathways for Ecological Restoration of Native Plant control in grassland systems, incorporating pre- Communities scribed fire, biological control, and cultural methods In 2009, Tamarac NWR initiated a project to decrease the time-lag in site restoration. through Wildlands Ecological Services, which used Golden-winged Warbler Breeding Ecology the Minnesota Ecological Classification System (ECS) to determine the distribution of native plant Tamarac NWR launched a multi-year research communities (NPC) within the Refuge in an effort to study in cooperation with Concordia College to: assess the restoration potential, including ecological  Assess the cumulative contribution of small iso- processes associated with those communities. lated patches of Golden-winged Warbler habitat An important consideration within ECS is the to the overall population on Tamarac NWR. inclusion of ecological processes as an organizing  Develop a fine-scale model of Golden-winged principle (e.g., fire regime, successional or seral Warbler habitat selection on Tamarac NWR. stage, hydrology, etc.). Instead of basing management decisions solely on cover types or other single  Document seasonal changes in breeding ecol- attributes, ECS will enable Refuge staff to under- ogy. stand how a variety of conditions are interacting and  Evaluate the detection area correction factor the site potential that results from those interac- (“listening distance”) established by Partners in tions. The expected completion date for this project Flight for estimating the population of Golden- is March 2011. Winged Warblers throughout the continental Survivability of Spotted Knapweed Biological Agents to U.S. a Spring Prescribed Fire In May 2010 project was near completion. A graduate student from the University of Wis- The University of Minnesota-Crookston launched consin–Green Bay, initiated a study in 2006 to exam- a similar project examining Golden-winged Warbler ine the “Survivability of Spotted Knapweed ecology and management. This effort is through a . Biological Agents to a Spring Prescribed Fire” As comprehensive approach coordinated through col- land managers began to integrate biological control laboration of federal and state agencies, academia agents into their weed management programs, and industry stakeholders across the breeding questions arise to whether or not prescribed fire has range of the Golden-winged Warbler. The primary an effect on these agents. Tamarac NWR is one of objective is to examine responses of Golden-winged six study sites distributed between Minnesota and Warblers and associated species to a host of early Wisconsin. Areas were sampled for spotted knap- successional habitat types and conditions with the weed bio-agent densities and vegetative cover goal of developing suitable habitat management before and after burn treatments. Preliminary prescriptions. results indicate that soil and unburned areas provide refugia from low intensity fires, thus there In addition, researchers hope to document genet- appears to be no detrimental effect for most knap- ically pure-populations by developing a genetic atlas. Tamarac NWR is one of seven studies monitored across the breeding range. Basic demographic data (return rates, territory size, clutch size, nest success, young produced per successful nest, annual reproductive output, parasitism rates and hybridization rates) is currently being collected in New York, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. The study is scheduled to be completed by December 2010. Post-fledging Ecology of Ring-necked Ducks in Minnesota The Minnesota DNR Fall Use Plan recognized sizable populations of resident breeding ducks as a cornerstone to improving fall duck use. Although breeding Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris) popu- Cleaning out a culvert plugged by beavers. Photo Credit: FWS lations have been increasing continentally, they

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 46 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

appear to be declining in Minnesota (Zicus et al. 2005). Factors influencing resident populations are poorly understood, and efforts to better understand their status began in 2003 with development of a breeding-pair survey for Ring-necked Ducks in Minnesota. Minnesota’s Fall Use Plan identified the need to better understand the role of refuges in duck management. The influence of north-central Minnesota refuges on the distribution and welfare of resident Ring-necked Ducks is largely unknown, as well as the influence that the distribution of the resident population might have on that of migrant Ring-neck Ducks arriving in the fall. The intent of this project is to relate the distribution and welfare of a local population of ducks to the pattern of refuges existing in north-central Minne- Visitors discover turtle egg shells on a wildlife excursion. Photo Credit: FWS sota. Understanding factors influencing the distribution of locally raised Ring-necked Ducks in the participated in surveillance monitoring efforts of fall may provide valuable insights into the distribu- this disease from 2006 to 2009 primarily by collect- tion of refuges required to meet management objec- ing cloacal and/or oropharyngeal during waterfowl tives for Ring-necked Ducks in Minnesota. banding activities. Primary targets sampled include Mallard, Green-winged Teal and Wood Ducks. All Incorporating the aid of radio telemetry, the samples were submitted to the USGS National objectives of this study were to: Wildlife Health Center located in Madison, Wiscon-  Characterize post-fledging movements of local sin for analysis. Ring-necked Ducks prior to their fall departure  Estimate survival of locally produced birds dur- Visitor Facilities ing this period Visitor activities on Tamarac NWR vary with the  Relate the survival of locally produced birds to season (see Figure 12 on page 48 and Figure 13 on their relative use of or proximity to established page 49). refuges (federal and state) in north-central Min- Hunting nesota. Hunting on the Refuge is very popular with local Tamarac NWR is one of two federal refuges and residents and many visiting hunters. All hunting is 12 state refuges involved in the study which encom- done in accordance with federal, state, and White passes a significant portion of the core of the Ring- Earth tribal regulations and seasons. A 1,350-acre necked Duck breeding range in Minnesota. The area surrounding the Refuge Headquarters and project is scheduled to be completed in December Visitor Center is closed to hunting. 2009. White-tailed deer are hunted during the state Disease Monitoring and Control firearms, muzzleloader, and archery seasons. The West Nile Vir us Refuge is identified as a separate harvest unit by West Nile Virus appeared in northwestern Min- the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. nesota in 2002, reported first in horses. Spread by The most popular small game is Ruffed Grouse, mosquitoes, this exotic virus infects mammals, with gray and fox squirrels, cottontail rabbit and including humans, and birds. Members of the Corvi- snowshoe hare also pursued by hunters. Migratory dae family (crows and jays) seem to be especially birds including ducks, Canada Geese, American vulnerable. Woodcock and Common Snipe are hunted during Avian Influenza (H5N1) the established fall seasons. The Refuge is open to a Avian influenza, the H5N1, highly pathogenic special state youth waterfowl hunt every year. strain of “bird flu,” has received a great deal of Fishing attention in recent years. It has not yet been detected in North America, but because migratory Fishing is a popular activity in this region of Min- waterfowl, shorebirds and other birds could poten- nesota and on Tamarac NWR as well. Regulations tially introduce the virus, an early detection sam- of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources pling strategy was developed. The Refuge has and, where applicable, the White Earth Reservation

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 12: Current Visitor Services Facilities – Fall and Winter

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 48 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Figure 13: Current Visitor Services Facilities – Spring and Summer

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

are in effect regarding licensing, creel limits, tackle ral resources of Tamarac NWR as well as the bio- restrictions and season. Anglers pursue northern logical work conducted on the Refuge. It contains pike, walleye, largemouth bass, bluegill, pumpkin- permanent exhibits including a forest and wetland seed, black crappie, yellow perch, black, brown, and wildlife diorama that features wolf, beaver and yellow bullhead and white sucker. eagle’s nest. Exhibits also include vernal ponds, Ruffed Grouse, and wildlife sounds of the Refuge. Several lakes are open for fishing throughout the Creative temporary displays and video monitors are year. Two sites along the Otter Tail River are also used to inform the visitors of what’s blooming, who open for bank fishing. The following sites are open is migrating, the use of fire management, the to fishing on the Tamarac NWR: threats of invasive species and other Refuge man-  North Tamarac, Wauboose and Two Island agement activities. Lakes are open year-round. Refuge kiosks provide interpretive information  Blackbird and Lost Lakes are open only during on the Fish and Wildlife Service and specifically the summer fishing season. Tamarac NWR. The Blackbird Auto Tour Drive has an interpretive brochure for stops along the route  Pine Lake is open to ice fishing from December and an observation platform was built with a focus 1 to March 31. on eagles and wild rice. Fact sheets and posters also  Bank fishing 50 yards either side of Otter Tail provide additional interpretive information. River bridges on County Roads 26 and 126 is Interpretive efforts to connect local residents permitted. No additional river areas are open to with biological activities and wildlife management fishing. practices extend to regular newspaper articles, Wildlife Observation radio and tv broadcasts. Off-site presentations to civic groups and others are also an important means Tamarac NWR is known as a great place to watch to strive for local communities to recognize refuges wildlife and it is recognized internationally for its as national treasures, understanding the System’s importance as a migratory bird stopover. Each year, tremendous contribution toward wildlife conserva- visitors from around the world come to the Refuge tion and actively participating in their stewardship. to observe wildlife. The road network and waters provide excellent opportunities for people, of all The Refuge’s interpretive program is subsidized ages with various abilities, to observe wildlife. Oth- by funds from Tamarac Interpretive Association. ers prefer to walk the nature trails or hike in search The Tamarac Interpretive Association has also paid of wildlife. During the winter, visitors can get into for the publication of brochures and signs as well as cross-country skis or snowshoes to observe wildlife. the construction of observation decks. A majority of their funds are derived from the sale of books, Ref- Staff and volunteers working at the Visitor Cen- uge-specific clothing and interpretive material sold ter maintain a wildlife observation log and share in a small store located in the Visitor Center. that information with visitors. Staff also help visitors locate observation decks that have viewing Environmental Education scopes, and binoculars are available for loan. Tours The Refuge welcomes school groups and others are given periodically that provide viewing opportunities into the back country. interested in environmental education. On average, 2,000-3,000 students visit the Refuge each year, with Wildlife Photography many returning several times over the seasons. School field trips are accommodated through guided The trails and observation platforms along the activities including data collection of habitats, tree lakes and rivers affords photographers, of all skill planting, and nature observations. In recent years, levels, excellent opportunities to photograph wild- home-schooled students are frequent visitors. The life. Many beginners focus their lens on the ever Refuge has a variety of lessons that address state charismatic Trumpeter Swan or state flower, the graduation standards and the Fish and Wildlife Ser- showy lady-slipper, as is evident by entries to the vice mission. There is a growing demand for envi- annual Tamarac NWR Photo Contest. The more ronmental education both on and off Refuge. seasoned photographers often venture beyond the auto tour route to capture images of plants, insects, Outreach and landscapes bathed in a wide spectrum of light conditions. The Refuge is an integral part of the surrounding communities. It plays a role in the communities’ Interpretation tourism through recreation, is an outdoor classroom for local school districts, and is at the headwaters of The Refuge Visitor Center, open year-round, two watershed districts. The Refuge is part of the contains a variety of displays to interpret the natu-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 50 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Pine to Prairie Birding Trail, North Country The expanding volunteer program at Tamarac National Scenic Trail and the Lake Country Scenic NWR includes more than 100 volunteers, both indi- Byway. All of these connections and more have cre- vidual and group, that donate more than 6,000 hours ated extensive partnership opportunities to enhance to the Refuge. Tamarac NWR volunteers are indi- the biology and visitor service efforts on a landscape viduals who want to give back to their community, scale beyond the boundaries of the Refuge. Refuge parents and grandparents wanting to model envi- staff regularly work with Chambers, local officials, ronmental stewardship, retirees willing to share a civic groups, agencies and organizations that have wealth of knowledge, concerned citizens of all ages similar goals. who are interested in making meaningful contributions while learning about conservation, and pas- Special events, held throughout the season, pro- sionate people who enjoy the outdoors and want to vide information on a variety of topics such as hunt- spread the word about Tamarac NWR and its great- ing and fishing, endangered species backyard est natural treasures. Volunteers on the Refuge wildlife, migratory birds, fire ecology, invasive spe- assist with providing information to the public at the cies management, wildflowers and wildlife films. Visitor Center, environmental education activities, Events in the community and presentations to interpretive and outreach programs as well as civic groups are all part of the outreach efforts. administrative tasks. They are photographers, Some of the events sponsored in recent years equipment operators, and journalists. They get include: involved in habitat restoration efforts, biological programs and maintenance tasks. Volunteers of  National Wildlife Refuge Week which includes a Tamarac NWR become advocates in the community Fall Festival event and a variety of interpretive for Refuge management actions and provide vital programs help in fulfilling the Refuge mission.  Detroit Lakes Festival of Birds Partnerships  Winter Open House Tamarac NWR staff invest a significant amount Volunteer Contributions of energy and time representing the Refuge in its The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended by role as a partner with other government and the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 and resource agencies as a neighbor and large land- the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and owner in the community. Refuge staff participate as Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1988, team members of various committees and groups authorized the Service to accept volunteer services. ranging from watershed districts to Minnesota tour- Congress reauthorized the Volunteer and Commu- ism promotion efforts. nity Partnership Enhancement Act in 2004, affirm- ing its desire to involve Americans as stewards of Interagency Coordination our nation’s natural resources and wildlife. As a Tamarac NWR staff work closely with profes- result, the Refuge System expanded its volunteer sionals from the various conservation agencies to program, environmental education programs, recre- ensure the continued resilience of the natural ational opportunities, and community-based part- resources to environmental challenges. nerships increased.  Assist U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natu- ral Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and local county soil and water conservation districts with Farm Bill program implementation.  Participation in Buffalo-Red River Watershed meetings.  Collaboration on water quality issues with the Red River Basin Water Quality Team, which advises Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on water quality management, improvement and protection strategies for the watersheds of Min- nesota’s Red River Basin.  Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agri- culture and the Minnesota Department of Agri- culture on invasive species monitoring and White-tailed deer welcome visitors. Photo Credit: Dick Henry management, including use of biological control

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

of the Refuge. The state enforces state seasons and regulations outside the reservation boundary. In addition, Refuge Special Use Permit regulations further control trapping activities, such as limiting motorized vehicle use to protect habitats and minimize disturbances and imposing more restrictive snaring regulations to prevent accidental catch of gray wolves. The Refuge trapping season runs from October through April 30 each year. The most common furbearers harvested are beaver, otter, muskrat, mink, raccoon, and red fox. Drawing attendance, trapping effort, and success varies greatly year to year depending on fur market futures. Over the past 20 years, harvest rates have averaged approximately 330 furbearers per year. Beaver are the most sought after species representing 57 percent of the harvest over this period. Tribal wild ricing: The White Earth Natural Resources Department (WENRD) hosts a Refuge permit drawing for wild rice harvest every August. Two to three hundred tribal members attend the drawing each year. The number of permits issued is based on the abundance, quality, and distribution of the wild rice beds within the Refuge. Staff from the WENRD annually assesses wild rice production on White Earth tribal members harvest wild rice. Photo Credit: the Refuge and determine how many boats each FWS lake or stretch of river can sustain. Refuge permits agents, establishment of insectaries, and infes- have been reserved for White Earth enrolled members and are issued per boat (two people per canoe). tation monitoring. Over the past 10 years, boat numbers and open  Coordination on a wide variety of surveys, stud- waters have ranged from 49 to 95 boats on 9 to 15 ies and restoration efforts with outside parties lakes and rivers. After the WENRD opens Lower including the U.S. Forest Service, Minnesota Rice Lake, in Clearwater County, to wild ricing, the DNR, Pelican River Watershed District and Refuge issues additional permits to enrolled mem- U.S. Geological Survey. bers. Ricing season normally begins in late August and concludes by mid-September. The Refuge Tribal Activities assists with the drawing, issues permits, and mows Tamarac NWR maintains a special relationship trails and boat landings for access. In addition to with the White Earth Reservation. The north half of sponsoring the drawing and managing the harvest, the Refuge lies within the original boundary of the WENRD also keeps boat landings clean, opens and White Earth Indian Reservation, established in closes trail gates, and posts required notices. 1867. A unique agreement referred to as the “Col- Other activities outside the scope of the Collier lier Agreement” was instituted during Refuge Agreement include: establishment. This agreement affords White Earth band members priority privileges to trap furbearers Leech harvest: Beginning in 1987, the Service and harvest wild rice on the Refuge (see Appendix has permitted commercial leech harvest on the res- H). Over the years, the Refuge and White Earth ervation portion of the Refuge for enrolled White Natural Resources Department have forged a Earth band members. The WENRD holds a draw- strong cooperative relationship managing these two ing for four leech trapping zone permits. The event activities. is annually attended by 150-250 tribal members. Tribal interest is high due mostly to the Refuge’s Trapping: A drawing for up to seven trapping Mallard Lake which has produced as many as 8,200 permits is conducted every October at Refuge head- pounds of leeches in a single year. Bait venders typ- quarters. The Refuge is divided into seven separate ically pay $4 to $12 per pound. Similar to wild rice, trapping zones that have been historically reserved leech harvest success is quite variable and has for tribal members only. The White Earth Reserva- ranged from 1,200 to over 8,700 pounds over the tion Tribal Council establishes seasons and regula- past 20 years. Leech harvest is open from ice out tions for trap zones within the reservation boundary through the end of August. Compared to other

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 52 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

tribal activities, adherence to permit requirements tionships with community leaders, businesses and has been very poor, in particular, the problem of organizations promoting the mission of the Service personal property abandonment on Refuge lakes and stewardship of Refuge lands. and wetlands. Other concerns have been raised regarding impacts this activity has on wildlife, such Tamarac NWR staff are involved with the Pine to as disruption of Trumpeter Swan nesting and the Prairie Birding Trail, a unique partnership between take of snapping turtles that destroy leech bags. the NW Minnesota communities of Detroit Lakes, Fergus Falls, Pelican Rapids, Roseau, Thief River Hunting and fishing: The Refuge and White Falls and Warroad; participating agencies U.S. Fish Earth Natural Resources Department coopera- & Wildlife Service, Minnesota Department of Natu- tively manage tribal hunting and fishing over the ral Resources Non-game Wildlife Program, Explore reservation portion of the Refuge. Minnesota Tourism; the birding entities of the Min- nesota Ornithologist’s Union, Audubon Minnesota, Other requested uses: The Refuge controls access Lakes Area Birding Club and the Agassiz Chapter to closed areas and also issues Special Use Permits of the National Audubon Society. The birding trail is on a case by case basis for other requested uses, an exceptional opportunity to provide wildlife tour- such as collection of plants for medicinal use. ism opportunities and associated economic activity Cooperating Organizations for visitors and residents of northwest Minnesota, while showcasing the tremendous natural resources Tamarac NWR partners with several organiza- of northwest Minnesota. In 2009, partnering with tions on efforts of mutual interest. the Province of Manitoba, this trail expanded into The Refuge friends group, Tamarac Interpretive Manitoba to create the newest international birding Association (TIA), was established in 1992 to serve trail in North America. as an advocate of Tamarac NWR and the Service. Currently Tamarac NWR has strong partner- The mission of TIA is to facilitate activities and pro- ships with the universities, such as University of grams that interpret, protect and restore the natu- Minnesota – Crookston, University of Minnesota - ral and cultural resources of the Refuge. The St. Paul, Bemidji State University and Concordia Tamarac Interpretive Association also raises funds University, to investigate resource management and offers volunteer support for conservation work issues of the Refuge. Working with academia and that might otherwise go undone. Through a cooper- college students at these universities also provides ative association agreement, the group runs the the Refuge an opportunity to aid in the development Wildlife Gifts and Book Store in the visitor center. of individuals interested in pursuing careers in natu- Store items offer visitors a variety of books, videos, ral resource management. and tools that help educate and engage people with the Refuge. The group provides funding for educa- Tamarac NWR works with several entities in the tional supplies, biological work and more. TIA promotion of tourism opportunities in the surround- assists with recruiting volunteers for environmental ing area. These entities include, but are not limited education, interpretive programs, events, biological to, Becker County Historical Society, Park Rapids and maintenance activities on the Refuge. TIA is an and Detroit Lakes Chambers of Commerce, Lake essential link to the community as they foster rela- Country Scenic Byway, North Country National Scenic Trail, Becker County Parks and Recreation, and the City of Detroit Lakes. Tamarac NWR works closely with local area schools (Perham, Frazee, Detroit Lakes, Holy Rosary, Lake Park – Audubon, Waubun-Ogema- White Earth, Mahnomen, Pine Point, Naytahwaush, Moorhead, and Glyndon-Dilworth) to deliver standards-based environmental education programs for school age children. Other environmental educational opportunities are made available through Tamarac NWR’s partnership with Natural Innova- tions, a community-driven organization committed to assisting individuals and organizations in developing a better understanding of how the health of humans and the environment are interrelated. Nat- ural Innovations is comprised of environmental edu- Trumpeter Swans. Photo Credit: Greg Stetz cation professionals from local governmental agencies (Becker County Environmental Services,

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Minne- (after 1,870 A.D.; the time of the European home- sota DNR), environmental businesses (RMB Labo- steading and the displacement of the Native Ameri- ratories) and citizen volunteers. can inhabitants). Tamarac NWR works with other non-govern- In late prehistoric times, the Tamarac NWR area mental organizations, such as Duck Unlimited, was occupied by the ancestors of the historic Sioux, Woodcock Minnesota, The Wildlife Management or Dakota/Lakota, who were based in the Mille Lacs Institute, Ruffed Grouse Society, Minnesota Water- area and were in the process of fragmenting into the fowl Association, Becker County Sportsmen Club, various historic bands when the French Jesuits and local Lake Associations, and the Izaak Walton fur traders first arrived there at the end of the 17th League in support of conservation initiatives such as Century. By the mid 1700s, the Ojibwe (or Chip- habitat restoration, wetland protection, environ- pewa) moved into Minnesota from the east as a mental education, water quality monitoring and direct result of the spread of the French fur trade. public use opportunities. By 1800, the Ojibwe were known to hunt regularly in the plains areas west of the Mississippi. The Otter Archeology and Cultural Resources Tail Band of the Pillager Ojibwe was probably well established in the Tamarac NWR area before 1820. Evidence found on Tamarac NWR has revealed a rich history of human use by many cultures. Refuge The first documented European occupants of the staff strive to protect and to preserve archeological area were traders of the Northwest Fur Company, and historic sites against degradation, looting, and who established a trading post at White Earth Lake other adverse impacts. in October, 1802. At about the same time, a small independent post at Shell Lake was started. How- Tamarac NWR has never been intensely sur- ever, actual European “settlement” did not occur in veyed for archeological resources. However, several the region until around 1868. The logging industry site and project specific investigations have made an appearance in Becker County relatively occurred on the Refuge. In addition, known archeo- early, to take advantage of the expansive forest logical and historic sites were summarized and stands. Commercial pine and oak were probably mapped in 1977 by two archeologists working under first cut within the county by about 1870. By about contract for the Service (USFWS 1977). This survey 1908, the forests of the area had been extensively provided background on the periods of habitation in logged and the logging era ended. There were sev- Minnesota and identified prehistoric and historic eral attempts at farming within the Refuge, but sites on Refuge lands. farming never achieved much prominence due to the dense forest, marginal soils and numerous wetlands. Archeologists in Minnesota have divided prehis- tory into several cultural periods, based on the arti- An inventory of archeological collections from facts left behind by different human groups and the Tamarac NWR was completed under contract by kinds of economic activities in which they were pri- the Institute of Minnesota Archeology (1993). There marily engaged. In the Becker County area, these have been five archaeological projects including periods are: The “Paleo-Indian” (before about 5,000 reconnaisance and collections from Tamarac NWR B.C. commonly characterized by mammoth, extinct since 1978, totaling an inventory of 1432 artifacts giant bison and other “big game” hunting, by and ecofacts. Currently, these collections are being nomadic groups using distinctively chipped stone curated by the Minnesota Historical Society at Fort spear points and tools); the “Archaic” (cs. 5,000 – Snelling and the Department of Anthropology, 1,000 B.C.; adaptation to changing and increasingly Hamline University, St. Paul, Minnesota. Due to the diverse environments); the “Woodland” (ca. 1,000 overlap in habitation by both Ojibwe and Siouan B.C. – 1,400 A.D.; the advent of pottery, and the con- speakers, most of the archaeological components struction of earthen burial mounds, by seasonally present cannot be related to any particular historic nomadic groups who practiced some limited horti- tribe or tribal activity. There is evidence that a large culture in southern areas of Minnesota, and began number of historic Ojibwe sites are present within the intensive use of wild rice in northern areas); and the Refuge, however, no cultural materials in the the “Mississippian” (ca. 1,400 – 1,700 A.D.; influ- collections can be assigned to the Ojibwe. ences coming into the area from more southern groups practicing organized horticulture, and gen- From these reconnaissance projects, historic erally living in large semi-sedentary villages in (post 1700s) and prehistoric sites have been identi- many parts of the American Midwest). These pre- fied. Among the historic sites, those associated with historic periods are followed by the “Protohistoric” logging activities (road, camps, dams, and ditches) period (ca. 1,700 – 1,870 A.D.; beginning with the are most abundant. Other types include clearings, first White-European contact and continuing during foundations, unidentified sites, settler’s communi- the fur trade expansion) and the “Historic” period ties, bridges, cemetery or grave, standing struc-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 54 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment

tures, a CCC camp, and a school. Habitations comprise nearly one-third of the prehistoric sites, followed by seasonal camps. The remaining sites include trails, clearings, cemetery/grave, and unidentified sites. There are stone markers on the Refuge that identify some of these historic sites. The markers were placed in the mid-1960s with the cooperation of Becker County Historical Society and Minnesota State Historical Society. Cultural resources management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director and is not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. The Regional Historic Preservation (RHPO) advises the Regional Director Loon. Photo Credit: D. Braud about procedures, compliance, and implementation of cultural resources laws. The Refuge Manager Of prominent importance are enforcement of fed- assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO about eral statutes found under the National Wildlife Ref- Service undertakings, by protecting archeological uge Administration Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, sites and historic properties on Service managed and Lacy Act. Refuge officers also enforce the con- and administered lands, by monitoring archeological servation provisions and restrictive covenants investigations by contractors and permittees, and attached to federal wetland easements and Farmers by reporting violations. Home Administration (FmHA) conservation easements which are spread across the Tamarac WMD. Law Enforcement Conservation provisions primarily restrict agricul- Federal and state laws and tribal conservation tural use and development on easement lands. codes governing the Tamarac NWR are enforced to Enforcement operations are crucial to preserving protect its priceless natural and cultural resources, these important natural resources situated in a bro- facilities, other assets, and public visitors. ken and over developed landscape. The Refuge currently staffs one dual function Refuge officer. The region’s Zone Officer for Minne- sota is stationed at the Refuge, lending enforcement assistance and guidance as needed. Formal and informal assistance agreements are in place with state and tribal officials to facilitate cooperation and effective law enforcement response to incidents and emergencies. The primary mission of Refuge officers is to protect visitors, render aid and assistance, and deter or interdict criminal activity. Officer presence, recogni- tion, and interface with the public provides not only the most effective method of soliciting voluntary compliance to Refuge regulations, but it also boosts visitor confidence and security, enhancing their Ref- uge experience. No regular patrols are scheduled, however officcers do carry out tours of duty during high activity periods such as summer weekends, holidays, and popular hunting seasons. While the Ref- uge is regarded as a safe, low crime environment, officers frequently address a broad spectrum of incidents including accident investigations, citizen assistance, missing person searches, fishing and hunting infractions, trespass, and drug and alcohol violations.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Future management on Tamarac NWR will focus on conserving and restoring the ecological integrity, particularly the structure, composition, and natural processes of native biotic communities and physical environments within the historical range of natural variability. At the landscape scale, management will conserve and restore nationally, regionally, or locally imperiled ecosystems and a diversity of habitat types (ie: native plant communities and cover types) while providing ecosystems, habitats, or seral stages important for wildlife species of national, regional, state, or local conservation concern (broad- based or coarse filter approach applied within this CCP). Management will strive to increase patch size and connectivity between similar ecosystems, thereby reducing fragmentation. At the patch scale, management will focus on conserving and restoring A tranquil Tamarac NWR setting. Photo Credit: Gale Kaas historic compositional and structural patterns to Frazee forests that were degraded by past human activities, while providing wildlife species benefits (fine filter ■ Alternative 4: Current Management Direction approach which will be applied in the step-down of Conservation, Restoration, and Preservation Habitat Management Plan). Public use activities on (No Action) the refuge will continue to be considered as long as they are compatible with wildlife and habitat goals The Environmental Assessment in Appendix A and objectives. describes and analyzes four management alternatives for Tamarac NWR. The Service identifies one Tamarac NWR Goals, Objectives and as its preferred alternative and it is described in this chapter as the proposed future management direc- Strategies tion that would guide activities on the Refuge for the The planning team developed goals and objec- next 15 years. tives for four management alternatives at Tamarac Goals, objectives, and strategies comprise the NWR. These alternatives include: proposed future management direction. Goals are descriptive broad statements of desired future con- ■ Alternative 1: Management of Habitat in Con- ditions that convey a purpose. Goals are followed by text of Providing Migratory Bird Benefits while objectives, which are specific statements describing Emphasizing Restoration of Historic Vegetation management intent. Objectives provide detail and Patterns and Ecological Processes (Preferred are supported by rationale statements that describe Alternative) background, history, assumptions, and technical ■ Alternative 2: Management Emphasizing Res- details to help clarify how the objective was formu- toration of Historic Vegetation Patterns and lated. Ecological (natural) Processes Finally, beneath each objective there is a list of ■ Alternative 3: Focused Management for Prior- strategies, the specific actions, tools, and techniques ity Migratory Birds required to fulfill the objective. The strategies may be refined or amended as specific tasks are com-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 56 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

pleted or new research and information come to light. Some strategies are linked to the duties of an employee position, which indicates that the strategy will be accomplished with the help of a new staff position. When a time in number of years is noted in an objective or strategy, it refers to the number of years from approval of this CCP. If no time is given, the objective is to be accomplished within the 15 years of the life of the CCP. Tamarac NWR Goals Goal 1: Wildlife Protect, restore and maintain a diversity of wildlife species native to habitats naturally found on the Refuge with special emphasis on There are more than 20 lakes on Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: Service Regional Conservation Priority Species D. Mudderman Goal 2: Habitat Protect, restore and enhance the wetland and Tamarac NWR (Appendix D). The goal expands the upland habitat on the Refuge to emulate natu- Refuge’s original focus on waterfowl and symbolizes rally functioning, dynamic ecosystems empha- its commitment to a more holistic view of wildlife. sizing a variety of habitat conditions that were We recognize that most direct wildlife outcomes present prior to European settlement. result through habitat management and these are considered under the Habitat Goal. Goal 3: People Provide people with opportunities to experience Objective 1.1 Trust Resources: Waterfowl quality wildlife-dependent activities and make a Maintain a minimum annual population of 2,000 connection with a natural, functioning land- breeding pairs of dabbler ducks (ie: mallards, scape. blue-winged teal and wood ducks), 300 breeding pairs of diving ducks (primarily ring-necked Goal 1: Wildlife ducks), 250 breeding pairs of Canada Geese and Protect, restore and maintain a diversity of wildlife species 25 breeding pairs of Trumpeter Swans on the native to habitats naturally found on the Refuge with spe- Refuge by providing optimal breeding habitats. cial emphasis on Service Regional Conservation Priority Note: This is considered a threshold objective Species. such that if the breeding pair estimate falls This goal exemplifies the Refuge staff’s commit- below the minimum specified objective for five ment to “thinking globally and acting locally.” On consecutive years it will trigger further investi- the local and regional scales, it implements the gation and management action. broad mission of the National Wildlife Refuge Sys- tem to conserve America’s wildlife and enhance bio- Rationale diversity. Tamarac NWR can most effectively do its The establishing authority explicitly states Tam- share as part of the national conservation strategy arac NWR was established to serve as a “breeding by focusing on those migratory species indigenous ground and sanctuary for migratory birds and other to the particular habitat types found in north-cen- wildlife”. The Refuge was originally known as the tral Minnesota. In addition to migratory species, Tamarac Migratory Waterfowl Refuge, thus empha- resident species will be considered in management sizing the importance of the area to waterfowl. The efforts, but will not take precedence over migratory Refuge was one of the areas which the initial acqui- species, unless the resident species is threatened, sition action was the result of the reinvigorated endangered or of special concern. In emphasizing national waterfowl restoration program which Conservation Priority Species in Region 3 of the began in 1934 to restore the nesting grounds of the Refuge System, Tamarac NWR is contributing to waterfowl resource. Studies during the summers of wildlife conservation at an appropriate regional 1934 and 1935 indicated that Becker and Mahnomen scale by trying to assist those species in greatest Counties had the highest waterfowl nesting indices need of attention. Note: Not all species associated in the state of Minnesota. with the conservation priority species for Region 3 are indigenous to Tamarac NWR, nor will the Ref- Management emphasis throughout Refuge his- uge manage for all the species on the list. A subset tory has focused on furthering the purposes for of the regional priority species has been selected for which Tamarac NWR was established, primarily

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

production and maintenance of migratory water- munities and ecosystems. Priority for monitor- fowl, with only endangered species having a higher ing will be given to those species identified as priority than waterfowl. Refuge resources of concern. Through this CCP, it might appear that water- Rationale fowl management is being de-emphasized; however, the Refuge staff plan on focused approach of forest The diversity of habitats on Tamarac NWR, its waterfowl resources by redirecting efforts to make position in the landscape, and its size all contribute quality habitat for ring-necked ducks, wood ducks, to its role as a place for many USFWS Trust mallards and trumpeter swans with less emphasis Resources, including Region 3 Conservation Prior- on grassland nesting waterfowl. Large blocks of ity Species. Priority Species, other than waterfowl, grassland habitat adjacent to wetland habitats will that currently inhabit Tamarac NWR including but be enhanced under this CCP; however, smaller par- are not limited to the following species: cels (<20 acre) of grassland will be converted to for- ■ Bald Eagle est for other species benefits. Considering Tamarac NWR’s place in the landscape and that outside the ■ Red-shouldered Hawk Refuge boundaries extensive fragmentation from ■ American Woodcock agriculture, development and timber harvest, the ■ Common Loon Refuge should play a powerful role in maintaining an extensive, un-fragmented landscape where possi- ■ American Bittern ble. ■ Ye l l o w R a i l Strategies ■ Forster ’s Tern ■ 1. Management of Refuge resources of concern Black Tern will be directed through habitat management ■ Yellow-bellied Sapsucker as identified in this plan as well as the subse- ■ Northern Flicker quent Habitat Management Plan. ■ Eastern Wood-Pewee 2. Extend the timber harvest rotational ages of ■ Least Flycatcher certain tree species and promote the retention of cavity trees for wood ducks ■ Sedge Wren 3. With the remaining grassland units develop an ■ Veer y aggressive management strategy, which ■ Wood Thrush should be subsequently incorporated in the ■ Golden-winged Warbler Habitat Management Plan, that enhances the value to nesting waterfowl and grassland pas- ■ Black-throated Green Warbler serines. 4. In the central portion of the Refuge maintain and/or restore Jack Pine barrens (which were historically present) adjacent to wetland habitats which provide a natural, open habitat that could be just as beneficial to ground nesting waterfowl as the current grasslands. 5. Maintain vernal pools or temporary wetlands within a forested landscape for the benefit of forest waterfowl species (breeding) 6. Restore natural processes (as much as possible) such as hydrology and fire in the appropriate wetland ecosystem, particularly sedge meadows along lake perimeters for the benefit of nesting Ring-necked Ducks Objective 1.2 Other Trust Resources – Non- waterfowl Implement a monitoring and research program to track the presence, abundance, population trends, and/or habitat associations of Trust White pines tower over a Refuge lake. Photo Credit: D. Braud Resources, including but not limited to Region 3 Conservation Priority Species, habitats, com-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 58 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Rationale Recent survey trends have indicated a stable wolf population in Minnesota which was well above recovery goals eastern established in the eastern gray wolf recovery plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the gray wolf in Minnesota, Wiscon- sin and Michigan in April 2009 and was subsequently mandated to reinstate protection through the Endangered Species Act due to pending litiga- tion. The current status of the eastern gray wolf in Minnesota is listed as threatened. In the near future, the Service will likely attempt to delist gray wolf in Minnesota again, upon which the state of Minnesota will take over management authority. The Minnesota DNR has already completed a management plan in advance of the first delisting attempt. Under the state plan, gray wolves will have two levels of protection. Tamarac NWR falls just outside the more protective zone; however, Gray wolf on Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: Donna Dustin all wolves will continue to be protected on all public lands throughout the state. Under the state plan, wolves can be removed from private land and in ■ Blackburnian Warbler some cases, small areas of immediately adjacent ■ Ovenbird public land. Hence, it is imperative that Tamarac NWR maintain healthy wolf populations with the ■ Mourning Warbler Refuge. ■ Swamp Sparrow In recent years, two gray wolf packs have pro- ■ Rose-breasted Grosbeak duced young on the Refuge. This wolf density is con- ■ Purple Finch sidered viable and sustainable. Gray wolves prey on Fish and Wildlife Service Trust Resources also both large and small mammals, including deer, include unique habitat types, communities and eco- muskrat, beaver, rabbit, and snowshoe hare. Tama- systems which are discussed in the Habitat Objec- rac NWR can manage for wolves only indirectly, by tives section later in this chapter. fostering habitat conditions that are favorable to prey populations, and by maintaining populations of Strategies the wolves’ preferred prey. 1. Management of Refuge resources of concern Strategies will be directed through habitat management which will be driven by objectives derived 1. Manage for a Refuge deer herd (pre-fawn from the CCP and HMP. The goal of the density) at a density of 13-17 per square mile. inventory and monitoring program is to 2. Conduct appropriate surveys to determine improve management actions and decisions pack size, distribution, territory size, move- through the adaptive management process. ments and productivity. 2. Revise current wildlife and inventory monitor- 3. Regulate trapping to maintain beaver and ing plan to address the monitoring needs for muskrat populations as a wolf prey base. the Refuge resources of concern 4. Maintain trapping restrictions for land-based 3. Conduct annual review of monitoring plan to trap sets to prevent accidental captures of assess trends of trust resources and deter- wolves. mine if there are any priorities for research 5. Maintain a mix of wetland, brush, forest, and 4. If a Trust Resource research issue has been grassland habitats that is conducive to healthy identified, initiate research at the station level. wolf and deer populations. Objective 1.3: Gray Wolves 6. Minimize disturbance from public use and Maintain adequate habitat and prey base to Refuge activities at known denning locations. support at least two packs of gray wolves on the Refuge.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Objective 1.4: Deer Management Objective 1.5: Fish Annually, maintain the Refuge deer population Maintain diverse, balanced and natural fish pop- (Minnesota Deer Management Unit 251) at a ulations where compatible with Refuge goals density of 13-17 deer per square mile (pre-fawn- and objectives, while maintaining all Refuge ing density) based on annual winter surveys. water-bodies free of invasive aquatic animal and plant species. Rationale Rationale Recently, there has been an over-abundance of white-tailed deer state-wide, with relatively high The goal of the Refuge fisheries program is to densities of deer (26 to 28 deer/mi2 pre-fawn survey) provide and maintain a diverse, yet balanced and occurring on the Refuge within the last decade. Lit- natural fish population capable of supporting a qual- erature reviews indicate that about 11-13 ungulates/ ity sport fishery. Lakes currently supporting catchable sizes of game fish (and open to public fishing) in mi2historically existed in this area, of which 2-3 2 most years include: Lost, Two Island, Wauboose, ungulates/mi were actually white-tailed deer. As Blackbird, North Tamarac and Pine. Some of the previously mentioned, adverse effects of browsing issues that threaten the Refuge’s fishery are unde- in forest understory by white-tailed deer could lead sirable nuisance fish species (bullheads, common to significant ecological ramifications. Data from carp and fathead minnows), poor survival of natu- Pennsylvania says that a population above 20 deer/ rally produced walleye, and winterkills. mi2 (pre-fawn densities) will impact vegetative regeneration. The impacts of deer over browse on Invasive animals such as common carp and zebra plants can cascade to affect wildlife species diver- mussels pose a current and looming threat to native sity, from insects to amphibians to migratory song fish and mussel species and have the potential to birds. disrupt the aquatic ecosystem. They can also have a direct link to the quality of fishing by displacing var- Unlike most of the other deer management units ious game fish, or destroying important habitat for surrounding the Refuge that include a lot of private fish and wetland-dependent birds which people land, Tamarac NWR has a sole statutory responsi- observe or hunt. Carp roll in the marsh sediments bility for migratory birds and current policy dictates and create a cloudy environment and uproot aquatic that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity plants. Little sunlight can penetrate the water and and environmental of the ecosystem within the Ref- fuel the marsh food web, few organisms thrive in uge boundaries. In order to attain the future habitat such conditions, and the biological diversity of wet- goals on the Refuge there is an inherent need to lands is reduced, including the production of wild maintain deer populations between 13 and 17 deer/ rice. Carp are present within Ottertail River sys- mi2. Although hunting opportunities are considered tem, but so far restricted in distribution by a box in the population objective, the emphasis is placed culvert structure in the Hubbel Pond WMA, which on habitat needs for migratory birds. is just south of the Refuge. Strategies All the Refuge water areas, with the exception of Lost and Wauboose Lakes have an average depth of 1. Continue the annual aerial deer surveys con- 8 feet or less; therefore, they are subject to frequent ducted by the Refuge staff but explore oppor- winterkills (death of fish due to lack of oxygen tunities for improving survey methodology caused by natural environmental conditions). The and population estimates Minnesota DNR currently stocks Wauboose and North Tamarac Lakes with walleye fry on an every- 2. Conduct periodic habitat assessments, such as other year cycle. Likewise, the White Earth Natural browse surveys and deer exclosure evalua- Resources Department stocks walleye fry in Lost tions to document the impact of various deer and Teacracker Lakes on a similar cycle. The Min- densities on the habitat nesota DNR and White Earth Natural Resources 3. Evaluate the health of individual animals and Department routinely conduct fish surveys on these herds using standard techniques, as needed, lakes that are stocked to monitor populations. The and by cooperating with the Minnesota DNR. LaCrosse Fisheries Resource Office (USFWS) has 4. Work with the White Earth Natural conducted fish survey assessments on some of the Resources Department to examine methods to other priority lakes on a 5-year rotation. adequately address tribal deer harvest statis- Strategies tics for the Refuge. 1. Continue monitoring fish populations and their impacts to the aquatic resources through

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 60 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

cooperation with the Minnesota DNR, White Earth Natural Resources Department and LaCrosse Fisheries Resource Office. 2. Include small non-game fish species, such as fat-head minnows, daters, etc. in future surveys. 3. Continue to stock naturally occurring fish species (walleye, northern pike, bluegills and bass) as necessary following winterkills in North Tamarac, Wauboose, Lost and Teac- reacker Lakes. 4. Update the Fisheries Management Plan upon completion of CCP and HMP. 5. Assess fish barriers within the Refuge boundaries and explore opportunities for removal of these barriers and restoration of fish populations (ie: reconstruction of perched culverts, flowages, dams, etc.).

6. Maintain water control structure at the South Blue flag iris. Photo Credit: J. Tabaka Chippewa outlet as an effective barrier to carp for the upper portion of the Refuge within the Ottertail River watershed. are too small to be a value to most area-sensitive 7. Keep abreast of the distribution and status of grassland bird species due to their juxtaposition in a aquatic invasive animal and plant species and forested landscape. These grasslands were origi- initiate preventative measures where feasible. nally intended to provide upland nesting habitat for 8. Work cooperatively with the White Earth dabbling ducks; however surveys in the late 1980’s Natural Resources Department, the Minne- and early 1990’s indicated limited use by mallards sota DNR and the LaCrosse Fisheries and blue-winged teal (primarily due to the condition Resources Office to develop guidelines to of the habitat). Many of the smaller grassland units effectively manage the fishery resource within may be biological “sinks” due to high predation the Refuge. rates. 9. Restrict introduction of fish species in lakes or Currently, there are 83 designated grassland other wetlands that were not naturally fish units on the Refuge with an average size of 17 acres basins (i.e., Pine Lake). (median of 7.6 acres). Sixty-eight percent (57 of 83) of these grassland units are less than 20 acres in Goal 2: Habitat size. Only ten of these grasslands are greater than Protect, restore and enhance the wetland and upland habi- 40 acres in size with the largest tract consisting of tat on the Refuge to emulate naturally functioning, dynamic 88 acres. Historically, there probably was not any ecosystems emphasizing a variety of habitat conditions upland grassland habitat at the Refuge during the that were present prior to European settlement. era immediately prior to European settlement Objective 2.1. Upland Grass (John Almendinger, pers. comm.). In addition, many Reduce anthropogenic grassland habitat from of these small grassland units are “economic sinks” 2009 levels (1,362 acres) by 953 acres (minus 70 due to the funding resources needed to maintain percent) and manage the remaining 409 acres grassland communities and combat threatening for the diversity of species present, including invasive plant species, which are occurring in many Region 3 Conservation Priority Species (Table 5 of the units. on page 62 and Figure 14 on page 63). Due to limited benefits to nesting dabbling ducks Rationale the Refuge staff recommended converting many of the smaller isolated grassland units to forest habi- The Refuge currently manages about 2,800 acres tats. Larger openings adjacent to lakes or large wet- (6.5 percent) as upland grass/brush habitat. These land complexes will be managed as grassland areas are mostly remnants of the pre-Refuge farm- habitat for the benefits of upland nesting waterfowl, ing era and have been maintained by mowing and and to some extent, grassland passerines. The Ref- prescribed burning. Many of these areas are small uge staff is committed to enhancing these larger and scattered throughout the Refuge and as such, blocks of grassland habitat; however, the focus of

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Table 5: Proposed Changes in Vegetation Cover Types, Tamarac NWR

Current Future Goal Change Management Habitat Type Percent of Percent Direction Acres Acres (Acres) Total by Type Developed 374 374 1 0 0 Lowland Coniferous Forest 1,863 1,863 4 0 0 Lowland Deciduous Forest 755 755 1 0 0 Lowland Mixed Forest 463 463 1 0 0 Lowland Shrub 2,657 1,814 4 -843 -32 Marsh/Wetland 6,251 6,967 16 716 11 Open Water 7,117 7,117 16 0 0 Upland Coniferous Forest 713 1,328 3 615 87 Upland Deciduous Forest 16,167 16,486 38 319 2 Upland Grass 1,362 409 1 -953 -70 Upland Mixed Forest 4,348 4,995 12 647 15 Upland Shrub 1,519 1,018 3 -501 -33 Total 43,589 43,589 waterfowl management on the Refuge will be redi- and Golden-winged Warblers, with long-term rected toward forest waterfowl species by providing benefits to forest interior songbirds. quality habitat for Ring-necked Ducks, Wood Ducks, Trumpeter Swans with less emphasis on Rationale grassland nesting waterfowl. In 1990, this forested/wetland area in the central Strategies portion of the Refuge was cleared of trees to create a brushy grassland area of 1,000 acres for the bene- 1. Convert targeted small isolated grasslands fits of upland nesting waterfowl, Sharp-tailed and openings within the forest through refor- Grouse and Greater Prairie Chicken. Prior the cre- estation or natural succession based upon site ation of the 1,000 Acre Tract, the area consisted of characteristics such as soil type, drainage, sur- extant grassland (52 acres), and the remainder was rounding habitat types, etc. a 50/50 mix of commercial forest (aspen, oak, pine) and wetlands. Although the intent was to clear cut 2. Use soil maps and other references such as the the tract, many red pines and oaks were spared Minnesota’s Native Plant Communities guide along the ridgelines that traverse the unit. Essen- and Kotar’s habitat typing manual to deter- tially, this management adopted a “cookie-cutter” mine the most suitable forest habitat type and approach where a chunk of forest habitat was frag- associated successional pathways and natural mented within an interior forested landscape. Cur- disturbances rently, this tract is not contributing significantly to 3. With the remaining grassland units develop an regional or even local waterfowl or prairie grouse aggressive management strategy, which populations. should be subsequently incorporated in the HMP that enhances the value to nesting Because of Tamarac NWR’s position in a forested waterfowl and grassland passerines. landscape and the juxtaposition of the tract, coupled with the fact that Sharp-tailed Grouse and Greater Objective 2.2. Upland Shrub (1,000 Acre Tract): Prairie Chickens have not pioneered or re-estab- Decrease the dominance of upland shrub habi- lished into the area, the area should be restored tats within the 1,000 Acre Tract by 75 percent back to a forested habitat type either through natu- by conversion to forest cover types initially ral succession or active restoration. Even a slight dominated by early successional forest struc- successional shift would greatly increase the value ture for the benefit of Region 3 Conservation of this tract to RCP species such as Golden-winged Priority Species such as American Woodcock Warblers and American Woodcock.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 62 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Figure 14: Future Land Cover Goals, Tamarac NWR

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Strategies tat within a continuous forest habitat primarily for the benefit of Ruffed Grouse, American Woodcock, 1. Re-forest the 1,000 Acre Tract in small black bear and white-tailed deer. These openings patches and allow some open areas to regener- are very similar to the smaller grassland units men- ate naturally. Work with the regeneration tioned above and are slightly smaller in size. The (oaks) and seed sources (red pine) that is cur- openings were typically placed in a variety of forest rently present there to restore the area back types and generally centered on recently abandoned to jack pine, red pine, white pine, and red and logging decks and ranged in size from 1 to 3 acres bur oak with aspen pockets. with an irregular shape. In most cases, these open- 2. Use soil maps and other references such as the ings represent a “hard edge” or transition from Minnesota’s Native Plant Communities guide grass to forest without much woody vegetation and Kotar’s habitat typing manual to deter- within the opening itself. mine the most suitable forest habitat type and Intense maintenance of these openings has associated successional pathways and natural included prescribed fire, herbicide, tillage, grading, disturbances mowing and seeding to stop woody invasion. Pre- 3. Plant jack pine seedlings (bud capping for scribed fire, herbicide and mowing have been the deer) in natural spacing patterns on sandy primary treatments in recent years, although inva- ridges and south-facing slopes. sive species, particularly thistle species, have 4. The intensive use of prescribed on this unit invaded many of these openings thus requiring addi- should be halted until detailed habitat objec- tional mechanical or chemical treatment. With lim- tives and strategies are developed. A combina- ited budgets, these openings can be very costly to tion of mechanical treatments (ie: patch maintain. mowing) and prescribed burning three years Based on recommendations (Green 1995) that in a row may be necessary to minimize hazel “there are enough natural openings on the land- (and other brush species) and prepare seed scape, we don’t need to maintain anthropogenic bed for additional plantings. openings”, these types of opening will not be main- 5. Once the forest cover types have been tained on the Refuge in the future. The natural restored, maintain a fire return interval openings on the landscape, along with temporary appropriate for those plant communities as openings created through routine silvicultural prac- identified in the Native Plant Communities tices, provide adequate habitat on the landscape for Handbook. the species that are currently using the openings, 6. The unit could used as a long-term research therefore, the Refuge will focus on maintaining site to monitor the changes in forest composi- unbroken or non-fragmented forest habitat. Tempo- rary openings created through on-going silvicultural tion along with potential climatic changes practices on the Refuge provide the same amount of introduced through climate change habitat if not more at no additional cost to the Ref- Objective 2.3. Forest Openings uge and require no maintenance. Convert 32 anthropogenic forest openings (totaling 63 acres) to forest cover types through natural regeneration or tree planting by 2025 based upon site characteristics such as soil type, drainage, or surrounding habitat types. By conversion to forest cover types these areas will be initially dominated by early successional forest structure benefiting Region 3 Conservation Pri- ority Species such as American woodcock and golden-winged warblers, with long-term benefits to forest interior songbirds once fully restored. Rationale From 1990 to 1991, 32 forest openings totaling 63 acres were established in the northern portion of the Refuge with funding provided by the DNR and local chapters of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Asso- ciation. These openings were created out of a need Enhancing habitat through a prescribed burn. Photo Credit: to provide early successional stages and edge habi- FWS

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 64 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Strategies Objective 2.5. Upland Conifer (Red,White and Jack Pine) 1. Convert small forest openings within the forest through reforestation or natural succes- Increase dominance of upland conifer (particularly red, white and jack pine but also white sion based upon site characteristics such as spruce and balsam fir to some extent), by soil type, drainage, surrounding habitat types, increasing both acreage (plus 615 acres) of dom- etc. inance at the Refuge scale and basal area at the 2. If tree planting is implemented, use soil maps stand level, to provide a diversity of seral stages and other references such as the Minnesota’s while restoring historic composition and struc- Native Plant Communities guide and Kotar’s ture for the benefit of Region 3 Conservation habitat typing manual to determine the most Priority Species such as Bald Eagle, Cape May suitable forest habitat type and associated Warbler, Northern Flicker, Olive-sided Fly- successional pathways and natural distur- catcher, Whip-poor-will, and gray wolf along bances with a plethora of other more-common forest passerines such as Blackburnian Warbler, Objective 2.4. Food Plots Black-throated Green Warbler, Pine Warbler, Convert remaining food plots (35 acres), with Red Crossbill, etc. Note: Overall changes of the exception of the plot adjacent the autotour major habitat types will be reflected as an trailhead, to forest cover types for the benefit of increase in acres for upland conifer (red, white, interior forest passerines. and jack pine) and mixed upland forest (ie: aspen/pine, forested broadleaf/coniferous mix, Rationale aspen/birch/fir/spruce, etc.) and a decrease in Food plots were initially planted in the 1950’s acres for upland deciduous (aspen, northern throughout the southern half of the Refuge to pro- hardwoods, basswood, oak, forested broadleaf vide green browse for Canada Geese and supple- mix, etc.). mental foods for ducks, migratory passerines and Rationale resident species. This was during the era of Canada goose restoration in the Midwest. The original goal Conifers are important at all spatial scales for a was to annually rotate about 100 acres of crop and variety of wildlife species. With the exception of green browse (alfalfa) in various locations through- non-forested wetland habitat, upland conifer (both out the Refuge within failed native grassland restored/white and jack pine) ranks the highest in regard ration sites. Due to successful restoration of Canada to species richness or total number of species using geese and poor crop production, the number of food this habitat (CWCS 2006). Pre-settlement cover plots has continued to dwindle to only a few in types throughout much of the northern and central recent years (North Chippewa fields and Auto-tour portions of the Refuge were largely comprised of site) and the emphasis has changed to “watchable mature stands of red pine, white pine, mixed red & wildlife” sites. Presently, these areas account for white pine and jack pine barrens. Red and white only about 35 acres of open landscape. pine was also intermixed with other dominant hardwood cover types such as aspen, basswood, northern The Refuge intends to abandon the Chippewa hardwoods and oak throughout the southern portion food plots in favor of natural cover. Alternatives for of the Refuge. Dry pine woodlands have been identi- this site include planting native prairie seed or other fied as imperiled native plant communities through cover crop that can eventually be converted to forest Minnesota DNR’s subsection planning (CP-PMOP or directly plant with trees. A food plot along the SFRMP 2009). Blackbird Auto-tour trailhead will continue to be maintained as a watchable wildlife site for the view- Since upland conifer communities have decreased ing public. However, this watchable wildlife site will substantially since the pre-settlement era, the Ref- not be promoted as a management practice through uge intends to restore native plant communities the Refuge’s environmental education or interpreta- dominated by red, white and jack pine through nat- tion program. ural succession, silvicultural practices including tree planting and natural processes such as fire. Domi- Strategies nance at the Refuge scale is intended to increase 1. Restore the North Chippewa fields to forest between-habitat diversity, whereas the dominance cover types utilizing the Native Plant Commu- at stand level is intended to increase within-in stand nities handbook for guidance diversity. 2. Maintain the Blackbird Auto-tour site as a Opportunities exist to allow some of the other watchable wildlife area (food plot) habitat (cover) types to convert to red, white or jack pine dominated communities either naturally or

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Strategies: 1. Hire a full-time Forest Ecologist to develop a forestry program that is ecologically, economically, and socially responsible as a means of sustaining the integrity of Tamarac NWR’s forest ecosystems and the human communities dependent upon them. 2. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification System (ESC) framework and the native plant community field guide to understand the successional pathways and natural disturbance regimes associated with native plant communities and to guide management decisions that American Woodcock. Photo Credit: FWS emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns. through silvicultural practices. Additional opportu- 3. Evaluate potential sites for red and white pine nities exist for planting pine, such as abandoned restoration within the Refuge based on suit- agriculture fields and upland grassland slated for ability of site characteristics and native plant conversion to forest. Since upland conifer histori- community mapping/modeling. cally occurred as a component within other habitat types (hardwood-dominated stands), opportunities 4. Convert some of upland grass fields that are slated for conversion to forest to red, white also exist for enhancing the structural diversity within these hardwood stands by increasing the and jack pine cover types through natural white pine, red pine, white spruce and balsam fir regeneration or restoration based site characteristics component (basal area) through creation of canopy gaps and understory planting (particularly where 5. Evaluate current mixed stands (mostly north- seed trees exist). Many of the remaining jack pine ern pine and bur oak) of closed jack pine/oak forests on the Refuge have become closed jack pine forest for conversion to jack pine barren habi- systems versus the jack pine barrens that once tat type (ie: decrease cover of oaks) followed existed. In the case of the jack pine barrens, infre- by appropriate disturbance regime (ie: fire) quent fire occurrences have altered this community 6. Evaluate other cover types for potential white type and succession has been allowed to occur. pine and red pine planting in canopy gaps (1-2 Therefore, the Refuge staff intends to restore the acre) in hardwoods to increase structural jack pine barren community and its associated dis- diversity or within-stand diversity turbance regime where feasible. In any of these situations, landscape juxtaposition, soil type, moisture, 7. Restore fire to the pine ecosystems through and the nutrient regime should be conducive to development of a detailed HMP. these conifers prior to any management effort or Objective 2.6. Upland Deciduous Forest treatment. Red, white and jack pine compete best Over the next 15 years, increase upland decidu- on outwash or glacial moraines where soils are ous forest by 317 acres while managing the remain- sandy and gravely, moisture regimes are dry to dry ing acreage (16,167) to maintain a diversity of seral mesic and the nutrient regime is poor to medium. stages and restore historic composition and struc- Although red pine and white pine have largely ture for the benefit of Region 3 Conservation Prior- been preserved or protected throughout recent Ref- ity Species using this habitat type on the Refuge uge history, there is concern that red, white and such as American Woodcock, Golden-winged War- jack pine are not adequately regenerating within bler, Eastern Towhee, etc., as well as other forest the Refuge largely due to high deer populations in interior species such as Red-eyed Vireo, Ovenbird, recent years and a lack of natural disturbances (ie: etc. fire due to fire suppression activities). Based on the Rationale cover type size distribution for the upland conifer stands on the Refuge, the majority of the stands are The hardwood cover types of upland deciduous within later age classes, therefore an increase in forest are much more abundant on the Refuge and early and mid age classes is desired. throughout the Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains of northern Minnesota, than was historically present. The aspen cover type is approximately 40 percent more abundant on the Refuge (plus 40 percent) compared to pre-settlement times, whereas the pro-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 66 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

portion of hardwoods (basswood, maple, oak, etc.) stocking densities. These habitat types were histori- has dramatically increased (plus 244 percent) from cally fire dependent systems with a rotation of mild pre-settlement times. In terms of the dominant surface fires of about 22-30 years. Under this strat- cover type, the northern hardwood cover type may egy, prescribed fire would be re-introduced into the not have changed as significantly in acreage esti- system to manage early successional jack pine bar- mates as the dry oak forests (which are located in rens which could provide nesting habitat for upland the central portion of the Refuge) has. However, the nesting waterfowl and passerines. Since red oak is structural diversity has changed significantly within an under-represented species throughout the Ref- the northern hardwood cover type through previous uge, red oak stands will be maintained where they silvicultural practices. exist and the red oak component will be increased within the northern hardwood cover types. Also noted previously, the Refuge intends to convert some aspen (particularly those in later age Strategies classes) to conifer-dominated cover types through natural succession and silvicultural practices. 1. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification Approximately 30 percent of the remaining aspen System (ESC) framework and the native plant cover type will be managed as early successional community field guide to understand the suc- habitat (<20 years age class) for the benefit of cessional pathways and natural disturbance Region 3 Conservation Priority Species such as regimes associated with native plant commu- American Woodcock and Golden-winged Warbler. nities and to guide management decisions that The current age-class distribution of aspen does not emulate natural disturbance regimes and pat- reflect a balanced age-class structure, therefore terns. efforts will made to move toward a more balanced 2. Convert some later age-classes of aspen to age structure managed through rotational silvicul- conifer-dominated cover types through natu- tural practices so that the ideal habitats are pro- ral succession and silvicultural practices. vided on a continual basis, long-term basis. Aspen cover types will range from pure aspen stands to 3. Manage approximately 30 percent of the mixed forests dominated by aspen including coni- aspen cover type as early successional habitat fers and other hardwoods, although efforts will be (<20 years age class). made to increase with-in stand structure and com- 4. Within the aspen cover type, manage for a position where feasible. more balanced age structure managed through rotational silvicultural practices. The Northern hardwood cover type consists of a mixture of basswood, sugar maple, red maple, 5. Manage the northern hardwood cover type to northern red oak, bur oak, paper birch and aspen in promote structural and compositional diver- which no one species compromises greater than 40 sity, including coarse woody debris and snags percent dominance in relation to basal area. Under and to increase dominance of rare species, certain conditions, the northern hardwood cover with continued emphasis on late successional type will be converted to other cover types based plant communities. primarily on site conditions, but for the most part 6. Within northern hardwood cover types, use northern hardwoods will be managed as late succes- silvicultural treatments to create single to sional plant communities. However, the northern multi-tree gaps to enhance structural & com- hardwood cover type will be managed to promote positional diversity, including coarse woody structural and compositional diversity and to debris and snags, and increase dominance of increase dominance of rare species. The use of pre- rare (such as conifers) overstory species. scribed fire will be limited in these systems primar- 7. Manage northern hardwood cover type as late ily due to the infrequency of natural disturbance in successional plant communities. these systems; however silvicultural treatments will be used to increase the structural and compositional 8. Convert some mixed dry oak-jack pine sites to diversity where feasible. jack pine barrens by removing the oak component and thinning the jack pine to low stocking Species comprising the oak cover type include densities. burr oak, red oak, and northern pin oak. Most of these stands (with the exception of red oak) occur 9. Maintain red oak stands where they exist on dry sandy soils that historically supported jack while promoting structural and compositional diversity (ie: white pine) and increase the red and red pine and due to fire suppression have slowly succeeded to mixed oak/jack pine or oak dominated oak component within the northern hardwood forest. Therefore, some mixed oak-jack pine sites cover types. will be converted to jack pine barrens by removing the oak component and thinning the jack pine to low

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

10.Use prescribed fire where and when appropri- 3. Transition some later age-classes of aspen ate (primarily in dry oak and aspen cover stands to mixed upland forest habitat types types). through silvicultural practices and understory 11.Retain snags to insure a continuous supply of tree planting. natural cavities wood ducks, hooded mergan- 4. Use prescribed fire where and when appropri- sers, and other cavity nesting birds. ate. Objective 2.7. Mixed Upland Forest 5. Retain snags and cavity trees to insure a con- Increase acreage (plus 647 acres) of mixed upland tinuous supply of natural cavities wood ducks, forest by increasing the dominance of upland conifer hooded mergansers, and other cavity nesting (particularly red pine, white pine, balsam fir and birds. white spruce) within deciduous forest stands to pro- Objective 2.8. Lowland Conifer vide a diversity of seral stages while restoring his- Maintain acreage of lowland conifer (1,863 toric composition and structure for the benefit of acres) and restore historic composition and Region 3 Conservation Priority Species such as structure when and where possible, while pro- Bald Eagle, Cape May Warbler, Northern Flicker, viding a diversity of seral stages. Region 3 Con- Olive-sided Flycatcher, Whip-poor-will, and gray servation Priority Species using this habitat wolf along with a plethora of other more-common type on the Refuge include Long-eared Owl, forest passerines such as Blackburnian Warbler, Olive-sided Flycatcher, Cape May Warbler, Black-throated Green Warbler, Pine Warbler, Red Connecticut Warbler and gray wolf and numer- Crossbill, etc. ous species in greatest concern need of Minne- Rationale sota. Historic benchmark conditions indicate high Rationale structural and compositional diversity within the Lowland conifer species include tamarack, bal- mixed upland forest habitat type. Red pine, white sam fir and black spruce. Due to structurally weak pine, balsam fir and white spruce were often inter- peat soils and shallow root systems, wind-throw was mixed with other dominant hardwood cover types a natural process historically in these habitat types. such as aspen, basswood, northern hardwoods and These plant communities are considered relatively oak throughout the Refuge. Since the era of the intact ecosystems relative to historic benchmark “great cut-over,” this “with-in” stand diversity has conditions, as very little harvest has occurred in shifted to more homogenous habitat types such as these habitat types. Undoubtedly, some of these pure aspen or oak stands, primarily due to altered roads constructed on the Refuge may have altered disturbance regimes through timber harvest prac- the hydrology associated with some of these lowland tices. Future management will focus on transition- conifer communities. Restoring the natural hydrol- ing homogenous habitat types (ie: pure aspen cover ogy associated with these communities will be pro- types) with the upland deciduous forest toward moted. Timber harvest or salvage operations will be mixed upland forests with higher structural and very limited in these communities in order to pre- compositional diversity, primarily the conifer com- vent a loss of single trees or small groups of trees. ponent. The mixed upland forest habitat type will Preservation and promotion of ecological integrity serve as a transitional stage between homogenous of these habitat types will be the primary strategy deciduous forest and long-term conversion to conif- for these communities in the future. erous forest. Strategies Strategies 1. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification 1. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification System (ESC) framework and the native plant System (ESC) framework and the native plant community field guide to understand the suc- community field guide to understand the successional pathways and natural disturbance cessional pathways and natural disturbance regimes associated with native plant commu- regimes associated with native plant communities and to guide management decisions that nities and to guide management decisions that emulate natural disturbance regimes and pat- emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns. terns. 2. Restoring the natural hydrology associated 2. Maintain and promote structural and composi- with these communities, where and when fea- tional diversity where it currently exists in sible mixed upland forests, including coarse woody debris and snags. 3. Management techniques should emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 68 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

4. Promote research or investigation to deter- and numerous species in greatest concern need mine the hydrological impacts of Refuge roads of Minnesota. and other facilities (ie: water control structures) on lowland conifer habitats Rationale Objective 2.9. Lowland Deciduous Timber harvest in these systems has been essen- Maintain acreage of lowland deciduous (755 tially non-existent in recent Refuge history, there- acres) and restore historic composition and fore the Refuge intends to continue with a structure when and where possible, while pro- “preservation” approach to these habitat types viding a diversity of seral stages. Region 3 Con- while promoting ecologically integrity within the servation Priority Species using this habitat habitat type. Very little data is available on regener- type on the Refuge include Wood Duck, Mal- ation and age classes within these cover types, but lard, Red-shouldered Hawk, American Wood- cover size data indicates these stands are comprised cock, Wood Thrush, Golden-winged Warbler of older aged trees. and numerous species in greatest concern need Strategies of Minnesota. 1. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification Rationale System (ESC) framework and the native plant Lowland hardwood species primarily include community field guide to understand the suc- green ash, black ash and American elm. Since tim- cessional pathways and natural disturbance ber harvest in these systems has been essentially regimes associated with native plant commu- non-existent in recent Refuge history, the Refuge nities and to guide management decisions that proposes to continue with a “preservation” approach emulate natural disturbance regimes and pat- to these habitat types as well. Very little data is terns. available on regeneration and age classes within 2. Maintain and promote structural and composi- these cover types, but cover size data indicates tional “with-in” stand diversity where and these stands are comprised of older aged trees. when feasible. With the threat of emerald ash-borer on the horizon, it seems prudent to monitor these stands in the near 3. Restore the natural hydrology associated with future rather than manipulate them. these communities, where and when feasible. 4. Management techniques should emulate natu- Strategies ral disturbance regimes and patterns. 1. Use the Minnesota Ecological Classification 5. Assess and monitor the ecological condition of System (ESC) framework and the native plant this habitat type. community field guide to understand the successional pathways and natural disturbance regimes associated with native plant communities and to guide management decisions that emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns. 2. Restore the natural hydrology associated with these communities, where and when feasible 3. Management techniques should emulate natural disturbance regimes and patterns 4. Monitor ash stands for any emerald ash-borer activity Objective 2.10. Mixed Lowland Forest Maintain acreage of mixed lowland forest (463 acres) and restore historic composition and structure when and where possible, while providing a diversity of seral stages. Region 3 Con- servation Priority Species using this habitat type on the Refuge include Wood Duck, Mal- lard, Red-shouldered Hawk, American Wood- cock, Wood Thrush, Golden-winged Warbler Drake Wood Duck. Photo Credit: FWS

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Objective 2.11. Lowland Shrub sedge meadows. Much of this transition can be Reduce the lowland shrub habitat type by 843 attributed to fire suppression within these wetland acres (32 percent) from 2009 levels through con- habitat types that are characterized by emergent version to marsh/wetland habitat type (primar- vegetation. Sedge meadows constituted more than ily open sedge meadows) and manage the three-quarters of Minnesota’s original wetlands and resulting acreage (1,815 acres) for the benefit of were indispensible habitat for plants like lilies, irises shrub/shrub wetland dependent species, includ- and native orchids. Furthermore, non-forested wet- ing Region 3 Conservation Priority Species land habitat ranks the highest in regard to species such as the American Bittern, American Wood- richness or total number of species using this habi- cock, Golden-winged Warbler and Black-billed tat within the Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains Cuckoo as well as numerous species in greatest subsection (CWCS 2006). conservation need. Strategies Rationale 1. The management of water levels on the Ref- This dominant habitat type has been increasing uge will follow one of three management strat- in recent years due to the lack of an ecological dis- egies: 1) no water level manipulation, 2) turbance and natural succession of the marsh/wet- removal of problem beaver dams as necessary land habitat type (see marsh/wetland section below). and 3) active water level manipulation. Many of the Refuge’s low-lying sites (primarily for- 2. Actively managed water levels via water con- mer sedge fens) are transitioning or succeeding to trol structures at Dry, Lost, Ogemash and lowland shrub, which although has value to wildlife, Chippewa Lakes. is not a habitat that is regionally scarce like sedge meadows. Much of this transition can be attributed 3. Establish a benchmark (where not previously to fire suppression. Open sedge fens are important identified) for all identified lakes so that water habitat for American Bittern, Yellow Rail, levels can be referenced from year-to-year. LeConte’s Sparrow and Sedge Wren, which are con- 4. Complete a comprehensive hydrological sidered regional conservation priority species. assessment to assess water flow, water quality There have been documented positive responses by and water capability of all major wetland rails to prescribed burning to reduce woody vegeta- areas (lakes and rivers). tion in the open fens from studies at Seney NWR 5. Complete a comprehensive survey of Refuge (Burkman 1993). wetlands by mapping all aquatic resources, Strategies including wooded potholes, drainage systems and other hydrologic features. 1. Restore and emulate natural ecological pro- 6. Use prescribed fire to maintain open sedge cesses through the use of prescribed fire and meadows for benefit of wetland dependent natural hydrological regimes where possible. birds such as yellow rails and American bit- 2. Document ECS native plant community for terns. these habitat types and their current condition. Objective 2.12. Marsh/Wetland Increase this habitat type by 716 acres (11 percent) from 2009 levels (6,251 acres) by converting the lowland brush habitat type for the benefit of wetland dependent species, including Region 3 Conservation Priority Species such as the American Bittern, Northern Harrier, For- ster’s Tern, Black Tern Sedge Wren, Yellow Rail, Le Conte’s Sparrow and Nelson’s Sharp- tailed Sparrow. Rationale Many of the Refuge’s low-lying sites (primarily former sedge fens dominated by Carex and other graminoid species) have transitioned or succeeded to lowland shrub, which although has value to wild- Tamarac NWR provides a diversity of habitats. Photo Credit:  life, is not a habitat that is regionally scarce like D. Mudderman

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 70 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

7. Explore opportunities for controlling cattail in nated lake by allowing undesirable species, such as specified wetlands through physical removal pickerelweed and cattail, to outcompete wild rice. and/or minimal chemical treatments. Sustained long-term viability of wild rice and 8. Examine any potential sedimentation build-up other wetland ecosystems has been recognized as at water control structures and explore oppor- the water management philosophy for the future on tunities for removal. the Refuge. Similar to the forested areas of the Ref- 9. Document ECS native plant community habi- uge, wetland management will focus on restoring tat types for all aquatic habitats. ecosystem function, primarily natural hydrological regimes. For the most part, the Refuge staff intends 10.Restore wetlands and emulate natural hydrologic regimes where possible. to manage the lakes, rivers and wetlands through natural fluctuations of water levels where possible. 11.Use the water level management database Essentially, the stop-logs will be removed from which is being developed by the USFWS Bio- some of the control structures and water will flow logical Monitoring Team. through freely. There are a few lakes that will still Objective 2.13. Open Water be managed via water control structures for the benefit of wild rice and other aquatic vegetation Maintain the open water (lacustrine) habitat where it is recognized that these structures can type (7,117 acres) based on 2009 levels for the have a positive impact. Water level prescription will long-term sustainability of wild rice and other not be rigid, but rather targets that provide the flex- native aquatic plants by emulating natural ibility for wetland enhancement. Wetland hydrological regimes and maintaining and/or systems are dynamic and since wild rice evolved through restoring water quality where feasible for the benefit Region 3 Conservation Priority Species these natural fluctuations it is critical to work with such as the Bald Eagle, Common Loon, Trum- these fluctuations in order to sustain wild rice production in the future. peter Swan, Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, Wood Duck and Lesser Scaup. Strategies Note: Although open water is used to charac- 1. The management of water levels on the Ref- terize by this habitat type, wild rice is a natu- uge will follow one of three management strat- rally fluctuating emergent cover type that is egies: 1) no water level manipulation, 2) recognized under this habitat type and varies removal of problem beaver dams as necessary from year to year in acreage, as well as density and 3) active water level manipulation. and seed production. 2. Actively managed water levels via water con- Rationale trol structures at Dry, Lost, Ogemash and Chippewa lakes. The basic purpose of water level management on the Refuge has been to enhance the area’s natural 3. Complete a comprehensive hydrological ability to grow wild rice and other aquatic vegeta- assessment to assess water flow, water quality tion for the benefit of migrating waterfowl. Sub- and water capability of all major wetland merged aquatic vegetation and associated areas (lakes and rivers). invertebrates provide essential food for waterbirds 4. Develop detailed wetland/lake management as well. Since 1959, management tactics have tried strategies in subsequent HMP to stabilize water levels so that the growth of wild rice would benefit waterfowl by providing brood 5. Establish a benchmark (where not previously cover and food for migrants. Water management for identified) for all identified lakes so that water wild rice production generally involved moving high levels can be referenced from year to year. spring runoff through Refuge lakes as rapidly as 6. Develop bathymetric maps of prioritized possible and maintaining stable water levels lakes. throughout the growing season. Throughout Refuge 7. Examine any potential sedimentation build-up history, water control structures have been used to at water control structures and explore oppor- manipulate water levels to “maximize” wild rice pro- tunities for removal. duction. However, wild rice evolved through a cyclic process of water level fluctuations depending upon 8. Initiate a shallow lakes survey on prioritized precipitation (and runoff) and evaporation in any lakes to assess habitat condition. given year. Recent research (Carson 2002) indicates 9. Document ECS native plant community habi- stable water levels over time or drawdown without tat types for all aquatic habitats. re-flooding capability (Deede pers. obs. 1989) jeop- 10.Restore and emulate natural hydrologic ardize the long-term viability of a wild rice domi- regimes where possible.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

the goal for invasive species management on the Refuge is to promote biological control agents as primary treatment and reduce the dependency of chemical applications. Strategies 1. Complete invasive species inventory in wetlands and forest habitats and establish a regular monitoring program to measure changes in invasive plant infestations. 2. Define priorities for controlling these invasive species within the Refuge boundaries. 3. Develop an integrated pest management plan (invasive species) with a range of alternatives Balsam Lake, Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: J. Tabaka for control of individual species. 4. Focus on early detection and rapid response to new infestations. 11.Document water quality and develop a protec- 5. Use chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire to tion and/or restoration plan for improving manage and control infestations. water quality if necessary. 6. Promote biological control agents as primary 12.Use the water level management database treatment and reduce the dependency of which is being developed by the USFWS Bio- chemical applications. logical Monitoring Team. 7. Monitor infestations and effectiveness of man- Objective 2.14. Invasive Species agement efforts. By 2025, reduce the area infested with target 8. Maintain information on distribution, abun- invasive plants (e.g., purple loosestrife, leafy dance, density, treatments, etc. in RLGIS spurge, spotted knapweed, thistle species, etc.) database. and animals by 50 percent from the documented 9. Promote research of invasive species treat- 2005 level and rapidly respond an where possi- ment effects and impacts on biological-control ble control new infestations of these and other agents as well as the effectiveness of the highly invasive species as they occur. agents. Rationale 10.Keep aware of distribution and new control methods for invasive animals such as zebra Invasive species are considered one of the great- mussels and earthworms. est threats to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, dated Goal 3: People February 3, 1999, directs federal agencies to use rel- Provide people with opportunities to experience quality evant programs and authorities to prevent the intro- wildlife-dependent activities and make a connection with a duction of invasive species, detect and respond natural, functioning landscape. rapidly to and control populations of such species, Objective 3.1. Welcome and Orient Visitors monitor invasive species infestations accurately and reliably, and promote public education on these spe- Annually provide no fewer than 100,000 quality cies and methods to address them. Numerous exotic visits to the Refuge. Ninety percent of visitors plants, invertebrates, and pathogens have been will report a satisfactory overall experience on identified at the Refuge, with many being invasive. the Refuge. The zebra mussel, a prolific aquatic invasive, has Rationale been documented in lakes within 40 miles of the Ref- uge. More invasive species are predicted to arrive in The Refuge mission and the National Wildlife the area in the future. Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 encourage visitation to refuges where compatible. Tamarac Invasive species management on the Refuge in NWR has been inviting visitors since its establish- the future will focus on early detection and rapid ment. The Refuge staff will assure that the Refuge response, essentially meaning complete control and is welcoming, safe and accessible. The Refuge will eradication of new infestations or satellite areas fol- provide clear information so visitors can easily lowed by control of large, central infestations. Sub- determine where they can go, what they can do and sequent to complete eradication of invasive species,

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 72 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

how to safely and ethically engage in recreational and educational activities. Strategies 1. Improve the website to provide clear and dynamic information about the Refuge’s importance, location, natural history and activities. 2. Ensure that entrance and directional signs are well-maintained and meet Fish and Wildlife Service standards. 3. Provide kiosks at key locations that welcome and orient visitors to the Refuge. 4. Provide and maintain publications that are clear, accurate and meet U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service graphic standards. Objective 3.2. Hunting Annually, provide no less than 7,000 quality hunting experiences on the Refuge. Seventy- five percent of hunters will report no conflicts with other users, a reasonable harvest opportunity and satisfaction with the overall experi- Hunters track down that trophy deer. Photo Credit: FWS ence. maintained. This will protect the wild rice resource and minimize resources impacted by Rationale improved access. Providing opportunities for hunting is consistent 7. Maintain Two Island Lake as open to hunting with the Refuge mission and the National Wildlife with a primitive access. Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Refuge 8. Improve hunter safety including deer drive uplands will be open to hunting, subject to state reg- safety, and the perception of safety of non- ulations and public safety concerns, and where bio- hunters, by providing new educational materi- logically feasible. When necessary, Refuge staff will als and events (brochures, signage, programs). seek ways to ensure that hunters have the opportunity for high quality experiences with both primitive 9. Develop operational definition of success and and improved access opportunities. measures for hunting through a survey of hunter satisfaction. All hunting will be conducted within the framework of Refuge, Minnesota DNR, and where appro- 10.Enhance public understanding of Refuge priate, White Earth Tribal regulations. (See hunting opportunities by increasing the qual- Figure 15) ity of maps, signs and wording within brochures and on the Refuge web page. Strategies 11.Hire a full-time law enforcement office to 1. Continue annual small game hunting opportu- share duties on the Refuge and District. nities (grouse, woodcock, snipe, rabbit, hare, 12.Establish hunter and vehicle counts, through squirrel). staff and volunteers, at all hunting access points to gain an index on hunting pressure 2. Continue waterfowl hunting opportunities. and collect additional hunting data. 3. Continue annual firearms, muzzleloader and Objective 3.3. Fishing archery white-tailed deer hunting opportunities. Annually, provide for 5,000 quality fishing visits to the Refuge. Ninety percent of anglers will 4. Explore assisted/contracted accessible hunts report no conflicts with other users and will during regular seasons in open hunting areas. know that they were fishing on a national wild- 5. Consider wild turkey accessible hunts on life Refuge. southern portion of the Refuge. 6. Designate Rice, Johnson and as open to hunting, but only primitive boat access will be

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Figure 15: Hunting Areas on Tamarac NWR

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 74 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Rationale Throughout north-central Minnesota, extensive shoreline development for residential and recre- Providing opportunities for fishing is consistent ational purposes has fragmented the lakes with with the Refuge mission and the National Wildlife manicured lawns, swimming beaches, docks, and Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Select other structures. Many of these practices detract waterbodies will be open to fishing, subject to state from a natural viewshed and are detrimental both to and tribal regulations, and where biologically feasi- wildlife and to lake water quality. The Refuge is try- ble. When necessary, Refuge staff will seek ways to ing to balance wildlife observation opportunities ensure that anglers have the opportunity for high with protection of this critical resource. quality experiences both primitive and improved access opportunties. Strategies Outboard motor use and lake access were identi- 1. Maintain the 5-mile Blackbird Auto Tour fied as issues during the planning process. In some Route with quality wildlife watching opportu- cases, motorboats and intense use interferes with nities. Refuge visitors engaged in wildlife observation. There is concern that boat trailering and motorized 2. Make the complete Blackbird Auto Tour fishing activity is not compatible with other uses Route one-way traffic. The road is too narrow along the Refuge’s auto tour route. for safe passage of two vehicles. The current two-way section creates a confusing route. Strategies 3. Continue annual amateur photo contest in 1. Promote ethical fishing practices, including cooperation with the Refuge friends group, proper disposal of fish lines and use of non- Tamarac Interpretive Association. toxic sinkers. 4. Improve South Tamarac Lake area for wildlife observation. 2. Implement educational program that promotes no-wake on wild rice lakes. 5. Open the closed area south of County Road 26 (keep it closed to hunting) and create a primi- 3. Use traffic counters to estimate number of tive hiking trail that merges with the North an . glers Country Trail. 4. Develop operational definition of success and 6. Develop an all-season hiking trail from the measures for fishing through a survey of Tamarac Lake ski trail. angler satisfaction. 7. Develop accessible trail and observation area 5. Consider a no-wake zone on the south end of at Chippewa site. Tamarac Lake for protection of wild rice resource. 8. Promote birding on the Refuge in coordination with the Pine to Prairie Birding Trail which 6. Designate Blackbird Lake as a non-motorized includes wildlife observation on the Refuge, lake f or quality wildlife observation. birding festival and publications. 7. Improve Cotton and Height of Land Lakes 9. Modify the Refuge web site to include current accesses. and accurate information about wildlife obser- 8. Improve Mitchell Bridge/Otter Tail River fish- vations and opportunities available to the pub- ing opportunities, including accessible fishing platform. Objective 3.4: Wildlife Observation and Photography Provide year-round opportunities for at least 60,000 visits annually to observe and photograph wildlife and habitat. Rationale Wildlife observation and nature photography are important and valuable activities for Refuge visitors and are priority, wildlife-dependent uses approved by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Specific activities must be compatible with the purposes of Tamarac NWR. Tamarac NWR lakes have some of the last Scoping out wildlife at Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit:  “unbroken” or undisturbed shorelines in the area. L. Kramer

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

lic. Link the Refuge web site to other important wildlife observation web sites. 10.Maintain 5 miles of hiking trails. 11.Maintain 8 miles of groomed ski trails. 12.Maintain viewing platforms with scopes and interpretive panels. 13.Provide guided photo opportunities and/or workshops. 14.Develop operational definition of success and measures for wildlife observation. and photography through a survey of visitor satisfaction. 15.Work with local units of government on the development of regional trails that link to the Refuge. Wildlife observation deck along the Blackbird Auto Tour. Photo 16.Promote undisturbed and undeveloped shore- Credit: J. Ditmar lines. pret the Refuge, its habitat diversity, natural 17.Add a restroom facility at Pine Lakes ski trail patterns and processes, and wildlife manage- parking lot. ment. Objective 3.5. Interpretation 4. Add interpretive panels to the Old Indian Annually provide no fewer than 2,000 personal Trail. interpretive experiences per year to create con- 5. Maintain and update interpretive signs/panels nections between people and the rich mosaic of on nature trail and viewing platforms. wildlife and habitats found within the forest- prairie transition zone of western Minnesota 6. Provide and maintain kiosks that orient visi- and an understanding of wildlife management tors and help interpret habitats, wildlife, man- activities on the Refuge. agement, and regulations (Figure 16 on page 78). Rationale 7. Replace dated Refuge orientation slide show Tamarac NWR has a long history of providing to new video format and offer a variety of wild- interpretation opportunities for thousands of visi- life-related videos for the visiting public. tors each year. Through the use of brochures, 8. Update Visitor Center Exhibits to enhance the kiosks, articles, web sites, and interpretive pro- overall message to reflect the importance of grams, the Refuge interprets the value of wildlife the Refuge including dynamic media that and their habitats to current and potential visitors. highlight the latest research activities. Interpretive products will be dynamic, of quality, and will articulate the importance of Service lands 9. Develop operational definition of success and to local and national conservation efforts. measures for interpretation through a survey of visitor satisfaction. The Refuge staff will strive to provide opportuni- Objective 3.6. Environmental Education ties focused on the objectives in this plan, so that the public will understand future management activities Annually provide no less than 6,000 environ- and provide support. mental education experiences per year to create connections between students and the natural Strategies resources of the Refuge. The experiences will also promote an understanding of habitat diver- 1. Identify three to five interpretive themes for sity, natural processes and wildlife manage- the Refuge that will guide development of ment. interpretive programs and products. Rationale 2. Continue to provide interpretive programs, events, festivals, tours for Refuge visitors, Few opportunities for guided outdoor experi- with a message that emphasizes habitat diver- ences for children exist within a 60-mile radius of sity, natural patterns and processes, and wild- the Refuge. Tamarac NWR plays an important role life management. in several area communities in providing experi- 3. Conduct at least two special events, 8-12 Ref- ences to connect children and nature. Tamarac uge tours, and 12-24 programs on-site to inter- NWR has an expanding environmental education

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 76 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

program. Since 2005 the environmental education Objective 3.7. Refuge Access and Secondary Uses contacts on the Refuge have tripled. In 2009, 5,605 Throughout the life of the plan, evaluate oppor- on-site environmental education visits by school tunities for new access to the Refuge and recre- groups occurred on the Refuge. The Refuge rou- ational uses not defined by the NWRS tinely turns away school groups due to the lack of Improvement Act of 1997. All public access and staff available to conduct environmental education secondary uses must be compatible with the activities. The Refuge currently has two staff to mission of the Refuge. handle all responsibilities of the visitor services program, including promoting and conducting environ- Rationale mental education, interpretation and volunteer management. Along with local partners, Tamarac The NWRS Improvement Act of 1997 identifies six priority public uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife NWR has surveyed local communities to determine a niche for educational programming for grade lev- observation and photography, and environmental els and communities that have the least amount of education and interpretation that receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in plan- environmental education support available. This ning and management of the Refuge System. Other focus of target grades allows Refuge staff to provide uses can occur but must support a priority public the most effective educational program with the use or not conflict with priority public uses. No use resources available. of a national wildlife Refuge can detract from All school curriculum directly relates to Refuge accomplishing the purposes of the Refuge or the management activities and it will meet the state of mission of the System. Tamarac NWR supports var- Minnesota environmental education graduation ious forms of nature-based outdoor recreation that, requirements while addressing the Minnesota envi- while not exactly wildlife-dependent, may well be ronmental literacy scope and sequence. In order to compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and con- keep it fresh and dynamic, the curriculum will be tributes to public appreciation and enjoyment of it. continually evaluated and improved in concert with Issues identified during de area teachers. velopment of this CCP included a proposed North Country Natural Scenic See Figure 16 and Figure 17 on page 79 for an Trail to run through the Refuge, desire for access to overview of future visitor facilities. the Ottertail River for canoeing, firewood cutting, horseback riding on Refuge roads, and snowmobile Strategies and all-terrain vehicle use in county road right-of- 1. Encourage programming and use of facilities ways. for environmental education activities for area Strategies schools, universities, community groups, and other Refuge visitors, with a message that 1. Coordinate with Becker County through the emphasizes habitat diversity, natural pro- recreational plan process to eliminate Snow- cesses, and wildlife management. mobiles and ATVs on County Roads within or immediately adjacent to Refuge boundary. 2. Regularly evaluate programs to ensure they are meeting the needs of the community as 2. Prohibit horse-back riding on the Refuge. well as addressing Refuge management activi- 3. Continue to permit firewood cutting but mod- ties. ify program to allow cutting only in areas that 3. Train volunteers to assist or lead educational complement Refuge management objectives. activities for classrooms. Priority cutting areas will be identified and guidelines and special conditions for permits 4. Develop operational definition of success and will be established. measures for environmental education. 4. Picnicking – convert the Chippewa site to an 5. Encourage partnerships with local schools, interpretive site. community groups and surrounding agencies. 6. Provide teacher workshops. Objective 3.8 Outreach Throughout the life of the plan, increase local 7. Create an educational shelter/classroom on community support and appreciation for fish the Refuge. and wildlife conservation and endorse the Ref- 8. Secure funding through partnerships for bus- uge’s role in conservation. ing for those schools that do not have the ability to assume those costs on their own with an Rationale emphasis on determined target grades. The Refuge considers its neighbors and visitors to be very important. The Refuge is an asset to the

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Figure 16: Future Visitor Services Facilities –Spring and Summer, Tamarac NWR

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 78 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

Figure 17: Future Visitor Services Facilities – Fall and Winter, Tamarac NWR

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

community and the continued support of the com- our nation’s natural resources and wildlife. Whether munity is essential. It is important that the Refuge through volunteers, refuge support groups, or other continues efforts to build and maintain open commu- important partnerships in the community, refuge nications with neighbors to let them know the suc- personnel seek to make the refuge an integral part cesses, challenges, and opportunities in of the community. Volunteers and partners of Tam- conservation and wildlife-dependent recreation. In arac NWR become advocates for Refuge manage- an ideal setting, the objective would be to achieve an ment activities and provide vital assistance in appreciation of the value and need for fish and wild- fulfilling the Refuge mission. life conservation among a larger percentage of the population living around the Refuge. Strategies The success in achieving the objective would be 1. Recruit, orient and train volunteers to assist determined through a survey of the general popula- with a variety of Refuge projects including vis- tion. However, for an objective to be useful it must itor services programs, habitat restoration, be measurable in both a conceptual and practical biological programs and maintenance tasks. sense. It is not practical to propose that the Refuge 2. Train volunteers to provide Refuge tours, lead will conduct a survey of the general population any- environmental education activities, and assist time in the next few years, because the approvals with interpretive and outreach programs. and costs are beyond the likely resources of the Ref- uge. As an alternative, the objective reflects the 3. Initiate and nurture relationships with volun- assumption that community leaders reflect and help teer and Refuge support groups including the form the attitude within the community. By evaluat- Tamarac Interpretive Association. Monitor, ing the opinions of community leaders, there will be support and evaluate these groups with the a surrogate measure of our desired outcome within goal of enhancing Refuge activities. the guidelines of the Office of Management and 4. In cooperation with the Tamarac Interpretive Budget. Association, maintain quality interpretive and educational material offered for sale in the Strategies Tamarac Wildlife gifts and Bookshop that 1. Upgrade and maintain the Refuge’s website. enhance wildlife watching. Objective 3.10. Archeological, Cultural, and Historic 2. Write and distribute no fewer than 20 news Protection releases each year that increase the public’s understanding and knowledge of the Refuge Over the life of the plan, avoid and protect or management activities, key natural resources mitigate against disturbance of all known cul- and its programs. tural, historic, or archeological sites. 3. Maintain regular contact with community Rationale leaders through presentations and conversa- Cultural resources are an important facet of the tions. country’s heritage. Tamarac NWR, like all national 4. Continue participation in community networks wildlife refuges, remains committed to preserving including the Pine to Prairie Birding Trail, archeological and historic sites against degradation, Lake Country Scenic Byway and local commu- looting, and other adverse impacts. The guiding nity chambers, etc. principle for management derives from the National 5. Explore new outreach efforts with local com- Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, 16 munities. U.S.C. 470 et seq. and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 as amended, 16 U.S.C. 47011- Objective 3.9 Volunteer Programs and Partnerships mm, which establish legal mandates and protection Annually recruit no fewer than 5,000 donated against identifying sites for the public, etc. The Ref- volunteer hours on the Refuge. uge must ensure archeological and cultural values are described, identified, and taken into consider- Rationale ation prior to implementing undertakings. It is also The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended by essential that new site discoveries are documented. the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 and In order to meet these responsibilities, the Refuge the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and intends to maintain an open dialogue with the Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1988, Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) and authorized the Service to accept volunteer services. to provide the RHPO with information about new Congress reauthorized the Volunteer and Commu- archeological site discoveries. The Refuge will also nity Partnership Enhancement Act in 2004, affirm- cooperate with federal, state, and local agencies, ing its desire to involve Americans as stewards of

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 80 Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision

American Indian tribes, and the public in managing uge to practice rice harvesting, hunt deer and cultural resources on the Refuge. gather natural products. Strategies Strategies 1. Conduct site-specific surveys prior to ground 1. Continue cooperating with the White Earth disturbing projects and protect known archeo- Band for the harvest of wild rice and furtrap- logical, cultural and historic sites. ping as per the Collier Agreement. 2. Explore partnership opportunities with White 2. Follow habitat objectives to ensure long-term Earth Band for cultural interpretation proj- wild rice production is sufficient to allow for a ects. successful harvest during most years. 3. Within 10 years of CCP approval and with the 3. Consult with the White Earth Band and other assistance of the RHPO, develop a step-down tribes with a historic interest in the area for plan for surveying lands to identify archeolog- interpretation and environmental education of ical resources and for developing a preserva- American Indian history. tion program to meet the requirements of 4. Work with the White Earth Band to reduce or Section 14 of the Archaeological Resources eliminate leech harvest on specific water bod- Protection Act and Section 110(a)(2) of the ies to curb negative impacts. National Historic Preservation Act. 5. Incorporate cultural history messages into 4. Identify and nominate to the National Regis- programs, exhibits and other media with an ter of Historic Places all historic properties emphasis on use of the Refuge landscape including those of religious and cultural signif- throughout time. icance to Indian tribes. 6. Develop an oral cultural history to preserve 5. Contract with cultural resources firms special- the “community memory” about the area. izing in Minnesota to conduct Phase I surveys prior to undertakings that could adversely 7. Provide education and training opportunities, affect historic resources. such as internships, for local youth, including tribal youth, in natural resource management. 6. In the event of inadvertent discoveries of ancient human remains, follow instructions and procedures indicated by the RHPO. 7. Ensure archeological and cultural values are described, identified, and taken into consideration prior to implementing undertakings. 8. Inspect the condition of known cultural resources on the Refuge and report to the RHPO changes in the conditions. 9. Integrate historic preservation with planning and management of other resources and activities. 10.Continue accessioning, cataloging, inventory- ing, and preserving the museum collection at the Refuge. Objective 3.11. American Indian Cultural Practices Opportunities to engage in American Indian cultural practices will be available at the level offered in 2009. Rationale The Refuge is rich in both historic and pre-historic American Indian cultural traditions. Both the Dakota (Sioux) and Ojibwe (Chippewa) Indians used the resources of the current Tamarac NWR and surrounding lands during historic times. Today, members of the White Earth Band travel to the Ref-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81 Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

New and Existing Projects This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action for the future management of Tamarac NWR and Wetland District. The ability to enhance wildlife habitats and to maintain existing and develop additional quality public use facilities will require a significant commitment of staff and funding from the Service. The Refuge and District will continually need appropriate operational and maintenance funding to implement the objectives in this plan. This section provides a brief description of the highest priority Tamarac NWR and Wetland Man- agement District projects as chosen by the Refuge staff. Installing a boat launch pad at Tamarac NWR. Photo Credit: Tamarac NWR Operating Needs and Visitor FWS Facility Enhancement Projects dren or the whole grade at that school. The pavilion Enhance Environmental Education and Interpretive would be utilized in conjunction with the visitor cen- Capacity and Capability ter, 25 miles of trails and natural resources of the 43,000 acre Refuge to provide learning stations for Construction of an environmental education facil- the full grade of students at the school. A pavilion ity will serve more than 10 rural Minnesota commu- would provide the space for these investigative nities where interaction with environmental science activities that bring a deeper understanding to the institutions is limited. Teachers, volunteers and Ref- science they are exploring. uge staff are engaged and ready to expand the educational opportunities at Tamarac NWR, but need a There is growing concern that members of the facility for students to process their observations public will be unprepared for increasing environ- and include children of all learning and physical mental responsibilities in the coming years. As envi- abilities. ronmental issues and programs become more complex and pervasive we need to nurture our youth Each year children from more than 10 rural for the challenge. Connecting children and nature school districts participate in environmental educa- develops an environmentally literate community tion and stewardship projects on the Refuge. As a able to make decisions about the environment based partner with educational institutions, Tamarac on science and contribute as stewards of our federal NWR ensures these school programs adhere to lands. Additionally, research shows that children's national science standards and graduation stan- learning capabilities are heightened when placed in dards as set forth by the Minnesota Department of an outdoor educational environment. The outdoor Education. The programs have become so popular experential learning environment stimulates cre- with local schools that capacity has been exceeded. ative thinking, promotes superior motor fitness, The small visitor center on site can only host improves problem solving skills and increases self- between 25 and 50 children and there are no facili- esteem and happiness. ties for conducting meaningful hands-on activities including laboratory projects or specimen examina- Estimated Cost - $500,000. Strategy 3.5.7 tion. A typical school field trip includes 100-150 chil-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 82 Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Provide Public Safety, Security and Resource Protection Develop a New Audiovisual Program at Tamarac NWR Through Increased Law Enforcement Capability Visitor Center Hire a full-time law enforcement officer to pro- Develop a new audiovisual program for use as an tect wildlife, lands, facilities, employees and the gen- interpretive tool in the visitor center auditorium eral public on the 43,000-acre Tamarac NWR. using state of the art equipment and technical Currently the station has one dual function officer. expertise. The Refuge’s current audiovisual pro- Directors Order No. 155 requires the Service to gram is nearly 25 years old and does not accurately reduce dependency on dual-function Refuge officers depict Service or Refuge information including its and progress towards a full-time officer workforce. biological programs. The audiovisual program is A full-time officer would be able to do more regular unquestionably the highlight of the Visitor Center and intensive law enforcement on the Refuge and experience and serves as an extremely important Wetland Management District throughout the year. interpretive and education tool. Approximately The Refuge is responsible for managing and moni- 85,000 people visit the Refuge each year to enjoy the toring easements throughout a five county District scenic beauty and abundant wildlife including Trum- extending from Tamarac NWR north to the Cana- peter Swans, Bald Eagles and wolves. dian border, distance of approximately 175 miles. Tamarac NWR has experienced a steady increase in Estimated Cost - $120,000. Strategy 3.4.7 public use and recreation and is now exceeding Update Visitor Center Exhibits 85,000 visitors annually. Hunting violations, off-road vehicle use, littering and traffic violations are Enhance the overall message of the visitor center increasing on Refuge lands. Additionally, the popu- to reflect the biology of the Refuge including the lat- lation growth in the surrounding communities is est research activities. The current visitor center placing additional strain on wildlife habitats and exhibits highlight Tamarac NWR’s wildlife species trust resources. A full-time officer would be able to and their habitats but do not interpret the manage- better build more cooperative relationships with ment, research and ongoing programs associated neighboring enforcement agencies. Half of Tamarac with them. Through the collection and display of NWR is within the original boundary of the White video and interactive exhibits incorporating the lat- Earth Indian Reservation. This officer would est technology, visitors will gain a better under- include the enforcement of all fishing, hunting and standing and appreciation of Tamarac NWR’s role non-consumptive use regulations as well as coordi- in fulfilling the mission of the Service. Annually nating/enforcing leeching, ricing, and trapping Tamarac NWR’s visitation exceeds 85,000. The Ref- rights exercised by members of the White Earth uge is situated at the convergence of three continen- Indian Reservation. This would require close coordi- tal biomes – tall grass prairie, eastern deciduous nation with Tribal Conservation Officers and Police. and boreal forests, offering tremendous opportunity to view a diversity of wildlife and habitats. Visitors Estimated Cost – $150,000. Strategies 3.1.11(Ref- are attracted not only locally, but from North uge) and 3.2.2 (District) Dakota-Minnesota metropolitan communities of Fargo and Moorhead located 50 miles west. The Develop Strategic Forest Management Program estimated metropolitan population is 200,000. Hire a full-time Forest Ecologist to develop a forestry program that is ecologically, economically, and Estimated Cost - $60,000. Strategy 3.4.8 socially responsible as a means of sustaining the Hydrological Geomorphic (HGM) Assessment of Tamarac integrity of Tamarac NWR’s forest ecosystems and NWR Lakes and Rivers the human communities dependent upon them. This individual would develop management plans to Conduct a comprehensive hydro-geomorphic ensure the restoration, preservation, protection and assessment of the lakes and streams of Tamarac enhancement of the Refuge forest resources. The NWR. Since Refuge establishment in 1938, the individual would perform systematic forest surveys aquatic ecosystems within the Refuge have been and inventories, conduct site evaluations, and over- altered through water control structures, dikes and see forest regeneration activities. In the early 1890s road construction. This assessment would evaluate loggers harvested most of the area’s giant red and ecosystem restoration and management options by white pines. Settlers followed the loggers. Attempts comparing historic conditions to present-day condi- to farm met with little success due to marginal soils, tions. Through this assessment the structure, func- many wetlands and dense forests. These activities tion and ecological processes that are needed to dramatically changed the landscape. This is a key restore the wetland communities would be identi- position to ensuring the biological integrity of Tam- fied, as well as the limitations of restoration man- arac NWR’s forest resources. agement. Tamarac NWR sits at the top of two watersheds that flow into the Red River of the Estimated Cost - $120,000. Strategy 2.5.1

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83 Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

North. This information would also provide valuable Wetland Management District Operating data for use in the Red River Valley Flood Manage- Needs Projects ment planning efforts. Enhance Wetland Management District Estimated cost - $80,000. Strategy 2.12.4 Hire one full-time wetland district manager to Aquatic Resources and Water Quality Investigation plan, organize, and implement management actions Hire a seasonal biological technician. Tamarac and provide oversight on 45 conservation easements NWR is situated at or near the top of two major within the Refuge’s five-county Management Dis- watershed (Buffalo and Ottertail) within Minnesota; trict. This position would engage, coordinate, and therefore, most people presume that water quality partner with state and local government officials remains in pristine condition. However, a baseline and conservation interest groups to further the Ser- water quality survey conducted by the Minnesota vice’s conservation mission, including future acquisi- Pollution Control Agency recommended that sev- tions of fee title and easements. Oversight of a eral lakes be included on the “impaired waters” list vigorous and successful Partners for Fish and Wild- (303d list), although further data would be needed to life Program, including supervision of the private complete an assessment of the lakes. There are 21 lands biologist, would also be the responsibility of natural lakes and three rivers within the Refuge, yet this position. There is currently no staffing on the little is known about the ecology and water quality five-county – 6,500,000 acre management district of these habitats, nor how these aspects affect trust and active management and partnership develop- resources. The project would support multiples ment has been limited. Natural resource deteriora- studies, surveys and investigations that would col- tion, habitat fragmentation, and lost community lect information on biotic and abiotic resources of partnership opportunities will continue to occur these systems, including aquatic vegetation, inverte- without active management involvement. brates, fish, waterbirds and water quality, all of Estimated cost: $120,000. WMD Strategy 1.3.1 which would be used to measure long term changes in aquatic systems. Survey FSA Easements Estimated cost - $88,000. Strategy 2.12.4 Survey the boundaries of the 14 FSA (formerly FmHA) easements on Tamarac WMD. Most of the Climate Change Adaptations for Biodiversity FSA easements were not sufficiently surveyed when Conservation at Tamarac NWR the Service acquired the management responsibili- Tamarac NWR’s location at the convergence of ties and are in need of resurvey. In addition, some three major biomes (boreal forest, eastern decidu- easements were not surveyed at all. Consequently, ous forest and tall grass prairie) make it well suited law enforcement operations are jeapordized and for studying the impacts of climate change and iden- valuable habitats threatened. Landowners do not tifying options for land managers to mitigate nega- have accurate knowledge of the boundaries of these tive impacts. Implement a long-term, adaptive easements and in many cases are altering the pro- management driven monitoring program of upland tected habitats. Without clear documentation of the and wetland plant communities, as well as the fauna easement boundary, law enforcement does not have of these communities. Habitat management activi- a defensible case in court. ties will be tailored to adaptation actions such as Estimated cost - $126,000. WMD Strategy 1.2.3 resistance, resilience and facilitation strategies promoting native plant communities in the face of a changing climate. Emphasis will be placed on, but Future Staffing Requirements not limited to, the long-term viability of upland coni- Implementing the vision set forth in this CCP will fers and wild rice wetland systems. Additionally, require changes in the organizational structure of interpretive programs will be developed for delivery the Refuge and District. Existing staff will direct on the Refuge showcasing the significance of climate their time and energy in new directions and new change on Refuge resources. Interpretive signs and/ staff members will be added to assist in these areas. or other medium such as brochures will be devel- The following are organizational charts and tables of oped. the current staff of the Refuge and District, Fiscal Year 2010, as well as staff needed to fully implement Estimated costs: $100,000 Strategy 2.2.5 this plan by Fiscal Year 2025 (Figure 18 and Table 6 on page 85).

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 84 Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Figure 18: Current Staffing Chart (2010), Tamarac NWR and WMD

Step-down Management Plans Table 6: New Staff Required to Fully Implement Step-down management plans describe specific the CCP by 2025, Tamarac NWR and WMD actions that support the accomplishment of Refuge and District objectives. The management plans Position FTEs identified in Table 7 will be reviewed, revised, or Law Enforcement Officer 1.0 developed as necessary to achieve the results anticipated in this draft CCP. Forest Ecologist 1.0 Wetland Management District Manager 1.0 Partnership Opportunities Total 3.0 Partnerships have become an essential element for the successful accomplishment of Tamarac Wilderness Review NWR and WMD goals, objectives, and strategies. We reviewed Refuge lands outside of the desig- The objectives outlined in this draft CCP need the nated wilderness area for suitability as additional support and the partnerships of federal, state and wilderness. This evaluation is presented within local agencies, non-governmental organizations and Chapter 3. No additional lands were found suitable individual citizens. This broad-based approach to for designation as wilderness as defined in the Wil- managing fish and wildlife resources extends derness Act of 1964. beyond social and political boundaries and requires a foundation of support from many. Tamarac NWR and WMD will continue to seek creative partnership Monitoring and Evaluation opportunities to achieve its vision for the future. The direction set forth in this CCP and specifi- Notable existing partners include the Tamarac cally identified strategies and projects will be moni- Interpretive Association, Minnesota Department of tored throughout the life of this plan. On a periodic Natural Resources, University of Minnesota, Natu- basis, the Regional Office will assemble a station ral Innovations, RMB Laboratories, and Ducks review team whose purpose will be to visit Tamarac Unlimited. NWR and the Wetland Management District and

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85 Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Table 7: Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Tamarac NWR

Plan Completed/ Anticipated Step-down Management Plan Updated Revision Wilderness Management Plan 1987 2012 Visitor Services Plan X 2012 Hunting Plan 1990 2013 Law Enforcement Plan 1984 2012 Furbearer Management & Trapping 1994 2011 Plans Tamarac Marsh & Water Management Plan 1992 Habitat Management Forest Management Plan 1994 Plan Grassland Management Plan 1990 Wildlife Inventory Plan 1992 Fisheries Management Plan 1991 Fire Management Plan 2001 2010 Cultural Resources Management Plan X 2016 Safety Plan 2009 2012 Disease Control Plan 1987 2017

evaluate current Refuge activities in light of this plan. The team will review all aspects of Refuge management, including direction, accomplishments and funding. The goals and objectives presented in this CCP will provide the baseline from which this field station will be evaluated. Plan Review and Revision The CCP for Tamarac NWR and the Wetland Management District is meant to provide guidance to Refuge managers and staff over the next 15 years. However, the CCP is also a dynamic and flex- ible document and several of these strategies contained in this plan are subject to such things as drought, floods, windstorms and other uncontrolla- ble events. Likewise, many of the strategies are dependent upon Service funding for staff and projects. Because of all these factors, the recommendations in the CCP will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, revised to meet new circumstances.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 86 Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Introduction and Background The Tamarac Wetland Management District (Tamarac WMD), established in 1987, stretches over 10,600 square miles in Beltrami, Cass, Clear- water, Hubbard and Koochiching Counties (Figure 19 on page 88). The Tamarac WMD is responsible for administering 8,908 acres of wetland and conservation easements distributed throughout these five north central Minnesota counties. The Tamarac WMD is one of eight wetland management districts within Minnesota (Figure 19 on page 80). In addition to easement enforcement and management activities, Tamarac WMD personnel also perform consultation roles for Farm Service Agency (FSA) Farm Bill programs, restore wetlands on private Red fox kits. Photo Credit: FWS lands, and render technical assistance to landowners who desire to enhance wildlife habitat on their property. As the Tamarac WMD possesses no land wildlife. The District will serve as a model of in fee title, it presents the paramount challenge of land stewardship and restoration practices working effectively with private landowners to while providing demonstration sites for scientif- achieve Service and District goals. ically proven wildlife and natural resource conservation techniques. District Purposes Tamarac Wetland Management District was Planning Background established in 1987… Issues and alternatives were developed for the Tamarac WMD in tandem with Tamarac NWR. For  “... as Waterfowl Production Areas” subject to a complete description of the process, please see “... all of the provisions of such Act [Migratory Chapter 2 of the Draft CCP. The issues identified Bird Conservation Act] ... except the inviolate related to the WMD are: sanctuary provisions ...” 16 U.S.C. 718(c)  Land Acquisition District Vision  Partners for Fish & Wildlife Program Tamarac Wetland Management District is a  Habitat Restoration Direction picturesque canvas of a natural landscape tran-  Invasive Plants sitioning from boreal peatlands to mixed forests  Management Emphasis of aspen, birch and pine. This diverse landscape affords the District unique opportunities to develop innovative partnerships centered on District Environment and Current habitat restoration and water quality improve- Management ments. The District working with landowners and partners will strive to maintain healthy eco- District Environment logical systems providing habitat continuity The landscape of the Tamarac WMD is compara- beyond boundaries to support a diversity of ble to Tamarac NWR in many ways in that it is

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87 Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Figure 19: Location of Tamarac WMD in Relation to Other FWS Lands

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 88 Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Figure 20: Overview of Wetland Management Districts in Minnesota

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89 Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

largely forested, sharing many of the same habitat cover types, and replete with lakes, rivers, and wetlands. The environment, however, is significantly different in a number of respects, such that it supports extensive conifer dominated peatlands, intense agricultural areas, and excessive development for recreational purpose. The District stretches across five north central Minnesota counties, over 170 miles north to south, and 115 miles east to west. Each county bears unique characteristics. Koochiching County abuts the Canadian border and represents the second largest county in the state. The land surface is pre- dominately flat with swampy peat based soils where glacial Lake Agassiz was at its deepest point. The northern portions of the county are broken in places by Precambrian bedrock. The land is mostly forested, divided by a number of major rivers, but few lakes. Agricultural use and development is minimal. A Marsh Wren sings. Photo Credit: Jim Williams Beltrami County is similar in that it is generally level and primarily forested, but possesses an abundance of lakes, including Upper and Lower Red Lake which cover about 280,000 acres. There a two Current Wetland Management District basic physiographic regions: the lake plain of glacial Programs: Where We Are Today Lake Agassiz over the north half, consisting of The Tamarac WMD is nestled along the western broad and flat lacustrine soils and beach ridges; and edge of the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province in the moraine-outwash complex overlaying the south northwestern Minnesota. While no lands have been half, a level to hilly region bearing sandy to loaming acquired in fee-title, the Tamarac WMD does man- glacial till. The county economic industries of tour- age or oversee 22 wetland easements (4,836 tract ism, timber, and farming have consid erably altered acres) and 23 former Farmers Home Administra- the natural landscape. To the south, Clearwater tion (FmHA) inventory properties (4,072 acres) County is comprised of a great variety of landforms within its five-county management area. and soil types. Forestry is the dominant land use, despite significant agricultural fragmentation. High Wetland easement tracts are legal boundary wetland densities abound across the county. Hub- descriptions that encompass wetlands protected bard County to the east is likewise heavily forested from draining, filling, leveling, and burning activi- and replete with lakes in the northern two thirds of ties. Wetland easements are recorded as tract acres the county. The southern portion is founded in a to account for increases in wetland surface area and mostly sandy loam glacial till and supports a long to afford the Service some control over drainage agricultural tradition. Cass County shores up the activities within the tract boundary that impact south end of the district. Its topography ranges easement wetlands. Former FmHA inventory prop- from flat to rolling. The landscape is pockmarked by erties fall into two general categories: conservation over 500 interconnected lakes and waterways. The easements and deed restrictive covenants. Conser- county is composed of a variety of landforms and vation easements protect both upland and wetland soil types. Agriculture is less prevalent and favors acres where the Service reserves restoration, habi- pasture and hay production. tat management, and enforcement rights. On deed restrictive covenants, the Service bears no manage- The District landscape conforms to three major ment rights, but does ensure compliance with watershed basins: most of Clearwater and Beltrami restrictive covenants and possesses the right to re- Counties drain into the Red River basin; Koochich- enter, restore, or repossess the property upon a cov- ing flows into the Rainy River basin; and Hubbard enant breach. and Cass Counties run-off into the Upper Missis- sippi River basin. The District feeds 16 of Minne- Extensive patches of open land and thousands of sota’s 81 major surface watersheds. wetlands pock- mark and fragment the northern hardwood and boreal forest landscape of the Dis- trict. Tamarac WMD private land activities have focused principally on wetland restoration. As much as possible, wetlands have been restored to historic

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 90 Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Wetlands Both restored and unaltered wetlands on private and easement lands are maintained at predicted natural water levels wherever possible. In the case of restoration, this is normally achieved by installing fixed-crest water control structures. Restoration techniques most commonly employed include the construction of earthen dams or “ditch plugs”, installation of corrugated metal pipe structures, and placement of riprap spillways to control human- induced surface drainage. Clemson leveler devices are sometimes embedded into earthen dams to neu- tralize beaver activities that over-inundate wetland basins and suppress important aquatic plant communities. Due to logistical constraints, active water A wetland restoration project gets under way. Photo Credit: level manipulation is not conducted. Allowing wet- FWS land water levels to bounce according to variable precipitation events, yields the best collective bene- water levels to regain natural hydrological func- fits for waterfowl, wading birds, reptiles, amphibi- tions. Upland habitat improvement projects such as ans, and aquatic mammals. While used little to date, grassland establishment, the development of wood- prescribed fire can play an important role in main- land stewardship plans, and wildlife benefiting graz- taining these aquatic ecosystems. ing systems have been confined to FmHA conservation easement lands. Woodland manage- The District also participates in water quality ment plans have generally centered on managing partnerships to improve riparian and stream habitat forest stands with little emphasis on ecological plant on private lands. communities and natural processes. Grasslands Habitat Restoration and Management Grassland management has been limited to The Tamarac WMD has restored more than 1,100 FmHA easement lands and fall into two general cat- drained wetlands over the past 20 years. The bulk of egories: abandoned cropland and hayland that has this work has occurred in Clearwater County. Valu- reverted or is being maintained as tame grass and able partnerships are periodically forged with the exotic broadleaf plant communities; and former Minnesota DNR, the Natural Resource Conserva- agricultural fields that have been re-seeded to vari- tion Service, county soil and water conservation dis- able mixes of native big bluestem and switch grass, tricts, and sportsmen clubs in support of the and non-native wheat grasses, birdsfoot trefoil, red Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW). The clover, and alfalfa. On a few state-owned FmHA PFW program has been, and continues to be the easements, more diverse stands of native grasses essential tool to restore degraded wetland habitat, and forbs have been established and are maintained as well as key in establishing the Service’s presence through the use of prescribed fire. Landowners and priorities across this large geographic area. retain limited haying and/or grazing rights on many Former crop fields on FmHA conservation ease- privately owned FmHA easements, that when exer- ments have been sown to low diversity stands of cised, does offer some management benefits by both native and non-native grasses and exotic forbs. repressing noxious weeds and invigorating grasses. These seed mixes grew fast in a variety of soil types, These practices, however, are commonly carried out controlled weeds, minimized annual maintenance too long or too intensely for ideal habitat mainte- needs, and provide effective, although not ideal, nance. With landowner cooperation, attempts to waterfowl nesting cover. A number of grazing plans modify their operations with modern, science-based have been developed which largely limit grazing practices are being employed that improve wildlife duration and intensity on easements where grazing habitat, but also satisfy agricultural business needs. rights are retained by the landowner. Annual graz- The Tamarac WMD PFW program has not engaged ing dates generally run July 15 to September 1 to in any grassland management projects on private protect nesting waterfowl and ensure adequate veg- lands to date. etation re-growth for winter cover needs of resident wildlife. Little forest management has occurred Forests except on state owned FmHA easement tracts. During the FmHA inventory property transfer period of the 1990s, Tamarac WMD staff co-developed with USDA officials a number of woodland stewardship plans. These plans are generally single

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91 Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

or co-dominant species oriented and in need of revi- efits by Incorporating Natural Ecological Processes sion. On state owned deed restricted easements, Where Possible. where the Service maintains only conservation oversight, limited select cutting for wood products has Goal 1: Wildlife occurred. Historically, the Tamarac WMD PFW Protect, restore and maintain a diversity of wildlife spe- program has not actively pursued forest improve- cies native to habitats naturally occurring within the ment projects on private lands, but opportunities Tamarac WMD with special emphasis on Service abound for future involvement. Regional Conservation Priority Species Wetland Management District Public Recreation, Objective 1.1 Environmental Education, and Interpretation Within 3 years of plan approval, assimilate available information on avian presence and All lands and projects administered by the Tama- abundance within Tamarac WMD and identify rac WMD are privately or state owned. Whether focal areas and strategies for habitat improve- under easement or a PFW agreement, landowners ment projects and land and easement acquisi- completely control public access and use. Landown- tion that delivers maximum benefits for ers are permitted to enjoy wildlife-dependent recre- waterfowl and other Resource Conservation ational activities such as hunting, trapping, fishing, Priority (RCP) species. bird watching, and wildlife interpretation, in accordance with state regulations. While staff is not an Rationale active participant, Clearwater County conducts environmental education work-shops at a facility on Protection and enhancement of migratory bird the Lawrence FmHA conservation easement which habitat is the primary purpose of the Tamarac they own. Their programs center on fostering good WMD. soil, water, and wildlife resource stewardship. Strategies Wetland Management District Goals, 1. Research, acquire, and incorporate existing migratory bird data from sources such as Min- Objectives and Strategies nesota Waterfowl Breeding Pair Counts, Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes, Minne- Future Management Direction: Where We sota Breeding Bird Atlas surveys, etc., into Want To Go Tomorrow the Tamarac WMD database system. Process The planning team developed goals and objec- baseline migratory bird data and carry out tives for three management alternatives at Tamarac priority area assessments within the Tamarac WMD. These alternatives include: WMD to direct program actions.

 Alternative 1: Restoration and Management of 2. Develop guidelines from acquired migratory Habitat that Expands Beyond Migratory Bird bird information that will focus conservation Benefits by Incorporating Natural Ecological actions and facilitate adaptive management Processes Where Possible strategies.  Alternative 2: Pre-settlement Ecological Pro- cesses  Alternative 3: Current Management Direction (No Action) The Environmental Assessment (Appendix A) describes and evaluates each alternative. Alterna- tive 1 is the preferred alternative and it forms the basis for the Tamarac WMD CCP. The goals, objectives and strategies are presented on the following pages. The planning team established goals for major management areas, objectives for achieving those goals, and the specific strategies that will be employed by Tamarac WMD staff. The goals are organized into the broad categories of wildlife, habitat, and people. Goals, Objectives and Strategies Restored wetlands provide resting areas for migratory Alternative 1: Restoration and Management of waterfowl. Photo Credit: FWS Habitat that Expands Beyond Migratory Bird Ben-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 92 Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Goal 2: Habitat 7. Working through partnerships, improve ripar- To protect, restore, and enhance wetland and upland ian and stream habitats within the District. habitats, mimicking natural ecological processes where Objective 2.2 Wetland Management possible, within the Tamarac WMD for the benefit of RCP species Maintain hydrological function of wetlands, currently totaling more than 4100 acres, under Objective 2.1 Wetland Restoration easement or PFW agreements. Acreage main- Restore or enhance on average at least 60 acres tenance will increase annually as additional of degraded wetlands on private lands per year lands are restored and preserved. to benefit waterfowl and other wetland depen- Rationale dent wildlife. Inspection, maintenance, and enforcement activi- Rationale ties are crucial to maintaining wetland investments Tamarac WMD activities have focused primarily and values. Routine landowner contacts and build- on private land habitat restoration that benefits ing good relationships generate partnerships, new waterfowl and other wetland dependent species. As opportunities, natural resource stewardship, and much as possible, wetlands have been restored to compliance. natural water levels that will fluctuate in reaction to Strategies seasonal and annual precipitation variations. 1. Annually inspect all easement wetlands Strategies through aerial reconnaissance or ground 1. Use the Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) checks for conservation reservation compli- and Small Wetland Acquisition Programs ance. Attempt to review all restored wetlands (SWAP) to expand restoration and protection under an active PFW agreement once every 5 of crucial waterfowl habitats. Emphasize habi- years to assess restoration effectiveness, wet- tat restoration, enhancement, and acquisition land condition, wildlife use, fish impacts, and actions around core wetland complexes which agreement compliance. may include establishing or increasing secure 2. Recognize existing or potential fish impacts to nesting cover to elevate migratory bird pro- wetlands on private and easement lands, and ductivity. where feasible, employ restoration techniques 2. Identify, prioritize, and leverage funding for or existing water control structures altera- wetland improvement projects through tions to minimize fish impacts to wetland sys- diverse and innovative partnerships with gov- tems. ernmental agencies, conservation organiza- 3. Include wetland habitats in prescribed burn- tions, civic groups, and private landowners. ing plans on conservation easements and 3. Emphasize wetland conservation work within highly significant private land projects where impaired waters or high priority watersheds that collectively accrues wetlands values for wildlife, water quality, flood abatement and recreational use and compliment state, county, or watershed and conservation organization priorities. 4. Assess, prioritize, and pursue enhancement and protection of the most imperiled shallow lakes in the Tamarac WMD, particularly those supporting critical wild rice resources. 5. Map and assess drained wetland resources, ownership, and restoration opportunities, forming a comprehensive database for strategic management planning. 6. Evaluate wetlands restored through the PFW Program, pursue extensions to expired habitat development agreements, and generate new habitat restoration opportunities. Working with a private landowner. Photo Credit: FWS

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93 Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

excessive woody encroachment is degrading participation in forest improvement projects, how- critical wetland habitat. ever, opportunities abound to benefit forest dependent RCP species. A number of woodland 4. Carry out the incorporation of the PFW pro- stewardship plans developed for some former gram application into the GIS database sys- FmHA properties, are now out-dated and require tem for efficient planning and management of revision. PFW projects and easements. Strategies Objective 2.3 Grassland Establishment and Management 1. Acquire knowledge of the geographical distri- Judiciously select sites sustaining dynamic wet- bution of Tamarac WMD landscape features land complexes for potential establishment of such as basic land cover types, land use and grassland communities. Strive to compose a ownership, watersheds, and other key spatial grassland unit with a large patch size and attributes to direct conservation actions. diverse assembly of native grasses and forbs. 2. Complete the development and manage the Rationale WMD- GIS database system. Grassland management has been limited on Tam- 3. Use Upper Midwest Great Lakes Land Con- arac WMD. Some abandoned cropland has reverted servation Cooperative and other partners to to tame grass and exotic broadleaf plant communi- investigate, identify, and prioritize forest habi- ties or has been re-seeded with low diversity mixes tat enhancement projects that benefit RCP of native and non-native vegetation on easement species viably residing within the Tamarac lands. Where grazing and haying rights are retained WMD. by easement landowners, grassland enhancement 4. Work with partners to develop and complete may be the best option to provide benefits for one PFW project per year that benefits early migratory birds. There are also opportunities to successional habitat or interior forest migra- establish diverse grasslands on private lands. tory birds of District priority. Strategies Objective 2.5 FmHA Conservation Easement Planning 1. Renovate conservation easement grasslands and Management with diverse mixes of native grasses and forbs Within 5 years of approval of this plan, develop where other management alternatives are or update and implement habitat management infeasible. plans on 16 FmHA conservation easements to benefit RCP species of Regional and District 2. Use soils, historical documentation, and other priority. information to evaluate potential sites for the establishment grasslands on private lands that Rationale will benefit wetland/grassland RCP species. Cost share assistance for grassland restora- Few FmHA conservation easements within the tion on private lands will require a minimum District possess habitat management plans and block size of 40 acres and the presence of a sig- those that do are out-dated. Site-specific planning nificant wetland complex. and management implementation is essential to restoring and maintaining these important conser- 3. Work with landowners and the USDA to vation lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System. develop and implement rotational grazing systems on conservation easement and private Strategies lands that will improve the quality of grass- 1. Conduct condition assessments of plant com- lands and recruitment of related RCP species. munity attributes on conservation easements Objective 2.4 Forest Management and prioritize disturbance treatment needs to recover key lost ecosystems components. Identify, prioritize, and implement forest conservation projects based on land capabilities 2. Implement various management actions such that yield the highest benefits for Regional and as prescribed burning, mowing, or shearing on Tamarac WMD priority species. conservation easements that maintain disturbance dependent habitats. Remove rock piles Rationale and other unnatural hostile predator habitat Historically, Tamarac WMD programs have con- that threaten waterfowl production. centrated on managing habitats for wetland depen- 3. Where the Service only oversees a restrictive dent wildlife species. The District has had limited deed covenant, work closely with the easement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 94 Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

3. Provide technical assistance to landowners who bear noxious weed control responsibilities, emphasizing non-chemical alternatives such as, mowing, grazing, use of biological agents, or the application of Service-approved low toxicity herbicides. 4. Identify and inventory invasive species on FmHA conservation easements. Employ various control or eradication methods for species that fall under Service management responsibility. 5. Employ the use of Clemson leveler devices to manage nuisance beaver activity negatively Wood Duck drake. Photo Credit: FWS impacting wetland ecosystems, upland habitat, and personal property on easement and owners to employ habitat development and private lands. enhancement practices that compliment Ser- Objective 2.7 Acquisition vice goals for RCP species. Pursue opportunities to acquire critical habitat Objective 2.6 Exotic Plant and Animal Control. for Service trust resources through fee title or Promote the eradication or control of invasive easement purchase, where PFW program plants and animals impacting native habitats on agreements and other natural resource agency easement lands by using a variety of methods programs are insufficient to fulfill perpetual including biological agents, chemical controls, protection needs. burning, mowing, grazing, and re-establishing Rationale native vegetative communities. Target species include spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, purple As of 2010, no lands have been acquired in fee- loosestrife, Canada thistle, common tansy, wild title and no additional easements have been con- parsnip, and common buckthorn. veyed since the 1990s within the Tamarac WMD. There are opportunities for growth. Where critical Rationale habitat is threatened and other program options are Invasive species are considered one of the great- not viable, acquisition provides an invaluable tool for est threats to natural ecosystems. Executive Order perpetual protection. 13112 – Invasive Species, dated February 3, 1999, Strategies directs Federal agencies to use relevant programs and authorities to prevent the introduction of inva- 1. Develop landscape based strategies for acqui- sive species, detect and respond rapidly to control sition of easements or fee-titled lands that populations of such species, monitor invasive species profit RCP species, support local and state infestations accurately and reliably, and promote clean water initiatives, improve shallow lake public education on these species and methods to ecosystems, abate forest fragmentation, and address them. Numerous exotic plants and patho- restores wildlife corridors. gens have been identified in the District, with many 2. Establish goal acres for each Tamarac WMD being invasive. More invasive species are predicted county for easement and Waterfowl Produc- to arrive in the area in the future. tion Area (WPA) acquisition and incorporate Strategies into the Tamarac WMD HMP. 1. Develop a prioritization matrix that will iden- 3. Acquire a minimum of one perpetual easement tify invasive species of concern and strategies or one WPA per year over the next 15 years. to minimize impacts that degrade Tamarac Continue to identify and pursue opportunities WMD habitats projects. to purchase additional wetland easements in the Tamarac WMD. 2. Participate in county weed management coop- eratives that focus on controlling the spread of invasive plants threatening priority District habitats. Advocate for the use of non-chemical methods such as biological and cultural controls.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95 Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Goal 3: People Objective 3.2 Enforcement Build relationships and partnerships with people and The Tamarac WMD will inspect all easements organizations to promote ecologically sound land stew- as well as future acquired lands each year to ardship. ensure the perpetuation of entrusted wildlife resources and government property. Violations Objective 3.1: Environmental Education, Interpretation that involve theft, damage, alteration, or and Outreach destruction of wildlife, habitat, or government The majority of rural landowners and partners property will be immediately addressed and within the Tamarac WMD will be aware of the resolved within one year from the date of detec- opportunities for habitat restoration and man- tion. agement offered by the Service. Rationale Rationale Refuge officers need to enforce the conservation Environmental education, interpretation and out- provisions and restrictive covenants attached to reach are important and valuable activities for land- Federal wetland easements and former FmHA owners, neighbors and visitors to WMD lands. We inventory lands within the District. Conservation should embrace opportunities to use the restored provisions primarily restrict agricultural use and habitats on the WMD to demonstrate sound wildlife development on easement lands. Enforcement oper- conservation techniques and land stewardship. ations are crucial to preserving these important nat- Strategies ural resources. 1. Build a partnership with the Clearwater Strategies County Soil and Water Conservation District 1. Tamarac WMD staff will inspect easements (SWCD) to enhance their soil and water stew- and any future acquired lands at least once ardship education program, promote Tamarac annually through aerial reconnaissance or WMD programs, and generate support for ground checks to confirm compliance and Service trust resource objectives. The Law- identify contraventions. rence FmHA Conservation Easement is used as a land conservation demonstration site and 2. Hire a full-time Refuge law enforcement offi- activity center for the SWCD’s education pro- cer whose duties will be shared by the refuge gram. Assist the SWCD in pursuing grant and Tamarac WMD. opportunities to upgrade and enhance their 3. Relocate or survey, and post all former educational facility and program. FmHA conservation easement boundaries to 2. Educate and engage TIA in Tamarac WMD solicit landowner compliance with easement management and outreach activities. Explore reservations and to facilitate any needed liti- partnership opportunities for restorations, gation. grant programs, and volunteer stewardship projects. Objective 3.3 Partnerships The Tamarac WMD will cooperate and partner 3. Promote greater public awareness and sup- with USDA, Minnesota DNR, tribal govern- port of the Service's mission and Tamarac ment, and conservation organization on initia- WMD objectives through a variety of media tives that further Service goals for migratory including website, literature distribution, birds and other Regional RCP Species. newspaper, radio, TV, and interpretive presentations to target audiences. Rationale 4. Inform and involve private easement owners Partnerships have become an essential element in management planning so they appreciate for the successful accomplishment of Tamarac and support Tamarac WMD objectives to WMD goals, objectives, and strategies. The objec- restore, enhance, and protect Federal trust tives outlined in this draft CCP need the support resources through ecologically sound natural and the partnerships of federal, state, tribal, and resource management practices. local agencies, non-governmental organizations and individual citizens. This broad-based approach to 5. Tamarac WMD staff will conduct a minimum managing fish and wildlife resources extends of one environmental education, interpretive, beyond social and political boundaries and requires or outreach activity per year in the District. a foundation of support from many entities. Tama- rac WMD will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to achieve its vision for the future.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 96 Chapter 6: Tamarac Wetland Management District

Strategies 1. Hire one full-time wetland district manager to plan, organize, and implement management actions and provide oversight on all Service easements within the District. This position would engage, coordinate, and partner with state and local government officials and conservation interest groups to further the Ser- vice’s conservation mission, including future acquisitions of fee title and easements. 2. Use operational and grant funding to cost share a variety of habitat improvement projects within the District. 3. Render technical assistance to state and Fed- eral agencies involving programs such as RIM, WCA, CRP, WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and other Farm Bill responsibilities that advance Service population and habitat goals for Fed- eral trust resources. 4. Pursue or contribute to partnerships that enhance or preserve vulnerable and critical resources of Service importance. Examples of potential conservation partnership projects include riparian restoration, fish passage, remnant native prairie preservation, shallow lake enhancement, and white pine forest restoration. Plan Implementation This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action for the future management of the Tamarac WMD. The ability to enhance wildlife habitats will require a significant commitment of staff and funding from the Service. The Refuge and District will continually need appropriate operational and maintenance funding to implement the objectives in this plan. Chapter 5 provides a brief description of the highest priority Tamarac NWR and WMD projects as chosen by the Refuge.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

Finding of No Significant Impact

Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Tamaïac National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District, Minnesota

An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to identify management strategies to meet the conservation goals of Tamarac National V/ildlife Refuge and Tamarac Wetland Management District. The EA examined the environmental consequences that each management altemative could have on the quality of the physical, biological, and human environment, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The EA evaluated four alternatives for the future management of Tamarac NWR and three altematives for Tamarac WMD.

The altemative selected for implementation on the refuge is Alternative I . The preferred altemative would encourage a future trend toward wildlife habitats that arenative to the arca and, maintained, where feasible, by natural processes. The preferred alternative also includes increased opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation. V/ildlife needs always receive priority when in conflict with visitor seryices.

The alternative selected for the wetland district is Alternative L The preferred altemative will result in a more active and growing district. Wildlife resources of concern will be identified and targeted for protection and enhancement. Growth of the WMD will include fee and easement acquisitions as funding is available. Priority will be given to core areas, corridors and critical sites.

For reasons presented above and below, and based on an evaluation of the information contained in the Environmental Assessment, we have determined that the action of adopting Alternative 1 as the management alternatives for Tamarac NWR and Tamarac'WMD is not a major federal action which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of Section 102 (2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Additional Reasons:

1. Future management actions will have a neutral or positive impact on the local economy. 2. This action will not have an adverse impact on threatened or endangered species.

Supporting References :

Environmental Assessment Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Appendix B: Glossary

Alternative Ecosystem A set of objectives and strategies needed to A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and achieve refuge goals and the desired future con- animal communities and their associated non-liv- dition. ing environment. Anthropogenic Ecosystem Approach Of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of A strategy or plan to protect and restore the nat- human beings on nature. ural function, structure, and species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components Biological Diversity are interrelated. The variety of life forms and its processes, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic Ecosystem Management differences among them, and the communities Management of an ecosystem that includes all and ecosystems in which they occur. ecological, social and economic components that make up the whole of the system. Compatible Use A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any Endangered Species other use on a refuge that will not materially Any species of plant or animal defined through interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the Endangered Species Act as being in danger the mission of the Service or the purposes of the of extinction throughout all or a significant por- refuge. tion of its range, and published in the Federal Register. Comprehensive Conservation Plan A document that describes the desired future Environmental Assessment conditions of the refuge, and specifies manage- A systematic analysis to determine if proposed ment actions to achieve refuge goals and the mis- actions would result in a significant effect on the sion of the National Wildlife Refuge System. quality of the environment. Cultural Resources Extirpation “Those parts of the physical environment -- natu- The local extinction of a species that is no longer ral and built -- that have cultural value to some found in a locality or country, but exists else- kind of sociocultural group ... [and] those non- where in the world. material human social institutions....” Cultural Goals resources include historic sites, archeological Descriptive statements of desired future condi- sites and associated artifacts, sacred sites, traditions. tional cultural properties, cultural items (human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and Interjurisdictional Fish objects of cultural patrimony), and buildings and Fish that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of structures. one or more states, for which there is an inter-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103 Appendix B: Glossary

state fishery management plan or which migrates cant portion of their range within the foreseeable between the waters under the jurisdiction of two future. A plant or animal identified and defined in or more states bordering on the Great Lakes. accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal Register. Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a manage- Undertaking: ment decision. For example, a resource manage- “A project, activity, or program funded in whole ment problem, concern, a threat to natural or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction resources, a conflict in uses, or in the presence of of a federal agency, including those carried out by an undesirable resource condition. or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; those requiring National Wildlife Refuge System a federal permit, license or approval...,” i.e., all All lands, waters, and interests therein adminis- federal actions. tered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife manage- Vegetation ment areas, waterfowl production areas, and Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life other areas for the protection and conservation of in an area. fish, wildlife and plant resources. Vegetation Type Objectives A category of land based on potential or existing A concise statement of what we want to achieve, dominant plan species of a particular area. how much we want to achieve, when and where Watershed we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for The entire land area that collects and drains the work. Objectives derive from goals and pro- water into a stream or stream system. vide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating Wetland the success of strategies. Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that Preferred Alternative are inundated by surface or ground water for a long enough period of time each year to support, The Service's selected alternative identified in and that do support under natural conditions, the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. plants and animals that require saturated or sea- Scoping sonally saturated soils. A process for determining the scope of issues to Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use be addressed by a comprehensive conservation plan and for identifying the significant issues. A use of refuge that involves hunting, fishing, vation and photography, or environ- Involved in the scoping process are federal, state wildlife obser mental education and interpretation, as identified and local agencies; private organizations; and in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improve- individuals. ment Act of 1997. Seral Wildlife Diversity A phase in the sequential development of a climax A measure of the number of wildlife species in an vegetation community. area and their relative abundance. Species Water Birds A distinctive kind of plant or animal having dis- This general category includes all bi tinguishable characteristics, and that can inter- rds that breed and produce young. A category of inhabit lakes, marshes, streams and other wet- biological classification. lands at some point during the year. The group includes all waterfowl, such as ducks, geese, and Strategies swans, and other birds such as loons, rails, A general approach or specific actions to achieve cranes, herons, egrets, ibis, cormorants, pelicans, objectives. shorebirds and passerines that nest and rely on wetland vegetation. Threatened Species Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species throughout all of or a signifi-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 104 Appendix C: Species Lists

Appendix C: Species Lists

Reptile and Amphibian Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR...... 106 Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR ...... 107 Butterflies Occurring on Tamarac NWR...... 124 Fish Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR ...... 125

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105 Appendix C: Species Lists s atu St Special Special Minnesota / Special Concern Abundance Abundant Rare Uncommon Occasional Abundant Common Abundant Common Occasional Common Abundant Common Occasional Common Occasional Abundant - - - Habitat erous forest erous Open water, Marsh/wet water, Open land Open water Open Upland Marsh/wetland, deciduous forest Upland Marsh/wetland, deciduous forest Upland Marsh/wetland, deciduous forest Upland Marsh/wetland, grass Upland Marsh/wetland, deciduous forest Upland deciduous and conif Marsh/wetland, Upland Upland Marsh/wetland, deciduous forest Upland Marsh/wetland, deciduous forest Upland Marsh/wetland, deciduous forest Upland Marsh/wetland, deciduous forest Marsh/wet water, Open land Marsh/wet water, Open land grass Upland open All habitats except water Family Emydidae Proteidae Ambystomatidae Hylidae Hylidae Ranidae Ranidae Colubridae Ambystomatidae Bufonidae Hylidae Hylidae Ranidae Chelydridae Scincidae Colubridae Amphibians, Tamarac NWR Amphibians, Tamarac Scientific Name Chrysemys picta Ambystoma laterale americanus Bufo Hyla chrysocelis Hyla versicolor triseriata Pseudacris Rana septentrionalis serpentina Chelydra Eumeces septentrionalis Thamnophis sirtalis Necturus maculosus Ambystoma tigrinum cruciferPseudacris Rana pipiens Rana Sylvatica Storeria occipitomaculata - - Common Name Painted Turtle frog Mudpuppy Blue-spotted Sala - mander Salamander Tiger Toad American Tree Gray Cope's Treefrog Gray Spring Peeper Chorus Western Frog Northern Leopard Frog Mink Frog Frog Wood Snapping Turtle Prairie Skink Snake Red-bellied Garter Common snake Occurrence of Reptiles,

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 106 Appendix C: Species Lists Federal RCP RCP RCP RCP RCP - Special Status State Threatened Special Con cern irmed ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Conf Wi r r r r r r c a o a u u u u u u Fa r r r r r c c c a u u u u u Su Abundance r r r r r r c c c o a u u u u u Sp Distribution Widespread Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Widespread Habitat Open water, Marsh/ water, Open wetland Marsh/ water, Open wetland Marsh/ water, Open wetland Marsh/ water, Open wetland Marsh/ water, Open wetland Marsh/ water, Open wetland water Open Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland Marsh/ water, Open wetland Marsh/ water, Open wetland Upland grass Marsh/ water, Open wetland Marsh/wetland Upland Development, grass Open water Open

Family Gaviidae Podicipedidae Podicipedidae Ardeidae Ardeidae Ardeidae Ardeidae Podicipedidae Podicipedidae Podicipedidae Pelecanidae Phalacrocoraci - dae Ardeidae Ardeidae Ardeidae Cathartidae Scientific Name ythrorhynchos Gavia immer auritus Podiceps nigricollis Podiceps Pelecanus er Bubulcus ibis Nycticorax nycticorax Botaurus lentiginosus Ardea herodias Podilymbus podiceps Podilymbus grisegena Podiceps Aechmophorus occidentalis Phalacrocorax penicillatus Ixobrychus exilis Casmerodius albus Butorides virescens Cathartes aura - - Common Name Common Loon Common Pied-billed Grebe Horned Grebe Red-necked Grebe Eared Grebe Grebe Western American White Peli can Cormo Double-crested rant Least Bittern Egret Great Cattle Egret Heron Green Night Black-crowned Heron Vulture Turkey American Bittern Great Blue Heron Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP RCP RCP RCP RCP RCP RCP RCP Special Status State Federal Threatened ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r r r r o a a a a u u u u u u u u u u r r r r r c c c o a u u u Abundance r o a a a a o u u u u u u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Widespread Widespread Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Habitat Distribution tland, Upland tland, Upland tland tland tland tland Open water grass Marsh/ Open water, wetland Marsh/ Open water, wetland, Upland forest deciduous Marsh/ Open water, wetland All Habitats grass Marsh/ Open water, wetland Marsh/ Open water, wetland Open water Open water, Marsh/ Open water, we Marsh/ Open water, we Marsh/ Open water, we Open water, Marsh/ Open water, we Open water Marsh/ Open water, we Marsh/ Open water, we Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac Chen caerulescensChen Cygnus buccinator Aix sponza Anas americana Anas platyrhynchos Anas clypeata Anas crecca Athya americana Anser albifrons Anas rubripes Anas acuta Athya valisineria Branta canadennsis Cygnus columbianus Anas strepera Anas discors Common Name Scientific Name Family Greater White-fronted Greater Goose Snow Goose Swan Trumpeter Wood Duck Wigeon American Black Duck American Mallard Northern Shoveler Northern Pintail Teal Green-winged Canvasback Redhead Canada Goose Tundra Swan Gadwall Blue-winged Teal Bird Species Occurring on Bird Species Occurring Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 108 Appendix C: Species Lists , RCP Delisted, RCP RCP RCP - Special Status State Federal Special Con cern ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r r r r r r r c c a o o u u u u u u u u r r r r c c o u u u u u Abundance r r c c a o u u u u u u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Widespread Isolated Widespread - - - - Habitat Distribution Open water, Marsh/ water, Open wetland water Open water Open water Open water Open water Open Upland water, Open deciduous forest Marsh/ water, Open wetland, Upland deciduous forest water Open water Open water Open Marsh/ water, Open wetland Marsh/wetland, Upland grass, Upland shrub for Upland deciduous est for Upland deciduous est for Upland deciduous est Open water, Upland water, Open coniferous and decid uous forest Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Accipitridae Accipitridae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Anatidae Accipitridae Accipitridae Accipitridae Accipitridae ucocephalus Athya collaris Athya affinis Clangula hyemalis clangula Bucephala merganser Mergus Oxyura jamaicensis Haliaeetus le Accipiter gentilis Accipiter striatus Athya marila Melanitta perspicillata albeola Bucephala Lophodytes cucullatus serratorMergus haliaetus Pandion Circus cyaneus Accipiter cooperii - Common Name Scientific Name Family Ring-necked Duck Greater Scaup Scaup Lesser Scoter Black Duck Long-tailed Bufflehead Goldeneye Common Hooded Merganser Merganser Common Mergan Red-breasted ser Duck Ruddy Osprey Bald Eagle Harrier Northern Hawk Cooper's Northern Goshawk Sharp-shinned Hawk Tamarac NWR (Continued) Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 109 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP RCP - Special Status State Federal Special Con Special cern Threatened ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r r r r u r r r r r c c c c o o o u r r u u u u u Abundance r r r r r r c c c c o u u Sp Su Fa Wi Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Widesrpead - - - - - etland Habitat Distribution ub, Marsh/wetland ub, tland, Upland tland, Upland tland Upland deciduous for est Marsh/wetland, Upland grass, Upland shrub Upland grass, Marsh/ wetland, Upland shrub shrub Upland grass, Marsh/ wetland,Upland shrub upland Open water, grass, Marsh/wet shrubland, Upland shrub Upland grass Upland deciduous for est Upland deciduous for est Upland grass, Marsh/ we Upland deciduous for grass, Upland est, Marsh/w Upland grass, Marsh/ we Upland grass, Upland shr Upland grass, Marsh/ we Accipitridae Accipitridae Accipitridae Accipitridae Accipitridae Phasianidae Phasianidae Accipitridae Accipitridae Accipitridae Phasianidae Accipitridae Accipitridae Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac Buteo lineatus Buteo swainsoni Buteo lagopus sparverius Falco Falco peregrinus perdix Perdix Bonasa umbellus Buteo platypterusButeo Aquila chrysaetos columbarius Falco Phasianus colchicus Buteo jamaicensis Falco mexicanus Common Name Scientific Name Family Red-shouldered Hawk Red-shouldered hawk Broad-winged Swainson's Hawk Hawk Rough-legged Golden Eagle Kestrel American Merlin Falcon Peregrine Partridge Gray Ring-necked Pheasant Grouse Ruffed Red-tailed Hawk Falcon Prairie Bird Species Occurring on Bird Species Occurring Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 110 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP RCP RCP RCP RCP - - Special Status State Federal Special Con cern Special Con cern ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed u r r r r r r r r r r r r c o a o u u u r o o o u u u u Abundance r r r r r r r r r r r r c c c o o u u Sp Su Fa Wi Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated - Habitat Distribution Upland deciduous for Upland deciduous est, Upland grass Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland Marsh/ water, Open wetland Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland Upland grass Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland Water Open Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland Phasianidae Rallidae Rallidae Charadriidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Rallidae Rallidae Gruidae Charadriidae Charadriidae Charadriidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae mipalmatus Meleagris gallopavo Meleagris americana Fulica Pluvialis squatarola Charadrius se Tringa melanoleuca Tringa solitaria Bartramia longicauda Rallus limicola fedoa Limosa Calidris pusilla Coturnicops noveboracensis carolina Porzana Grus canadensis Pluvialis dominica Charadrius vociferus Tringa flavipes Actitis macularius Limosa haemastica Arenaria interpres - Common Name Scientific Name Family Wild Turkey Rail Yellow Sora Coot American Sandhill Crane Plover Black-bellied Plo - Golden American ver Semipalmated Plover Killdeer Greater Yellowlegs Yellowlegs Lesser Solitary Sandpiper Spotted Sandpiper Sandpiper Upland Hudsonian Godwit Turnstone Ruddy Semipalmated Sand piper Virginia Rail Virginia Godwit Marbled Tamarac NWR (Continued) Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 111 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP RCP RCP RCP RCP RCP RCP - - Special Status State Federal Threatened Threatened Con Special cern, Special Con Special cern ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r r r r r r r r c c c o o o u u u u u r r c c o o u u u Abundance r r r r r r r r c c c c o o o o u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Widespread Widespread Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Widespread Widespread Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated - Habitat Distribution Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland Low Marsh/wetland, land shrub, Upland shrubgrass, Upland Marsh/wetland Open water Open water Open water Open water Marsh/wetland, Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland. Upland grass Open water Open water Open water Marsh/wetland Marsh/wetland Open water Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Laridae Laridae Laridae Laridae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Laridae Laridae Laridae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Laridae Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac Calidris minutilla Calidris melanotos himantopus Calidris Limnodromus scolopaceus minor Scolopax Phalaropus lobatus Larus philadelphia argentatus Larus Sterna hirundo Chlidonias niger Calidris bairdii Calidris alpina Gallinago delicata Larus pipixcan Larus delawarensis Sterna caspia Limnodromus griseus Limnodromus Phalaropus tricolor Sterna forsteri Common Name Scientific Name Family Least Sandpiper Sandpiper Baird's Sandpiper Pectoral Dunlin Stilt Sandpiper Dowitcher Long-billed Snipe Wilson's Woodcock American Red-necked Phalarope Gull Franklin's Bonaparte's Gull Gull Ring-billed Herring Gull Caspian Tern Tern Common Black Tern Short-billed Dowitcher Phalarope Wilson's Forster's Tern Bird Species Occurring on Bird Species Occurring Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 112 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP RCP RCP RCP - Special Status State Federal Special Con cern, ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r r r u u r r r r r r r c o u u u u r r r r c o u u u u u Abundance r r r r r r c o u u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread ------Habitat Distribution iferous forest iferous forest iferous iferous forest, forest, iferous rub Upland grass, Upland Upland grass, Upland sh for Upland deciduous shrubest, Lowland for Upland deciduous shrubest, Lowland for Upland deciduous est Upland deciduous and con Upland grass and shrub Upland grass, Marsh/ wetland Upland and lowland deciduous and conif erous forest Upland and lowland deciduous and conif erous forest for Upland deciduous shrub,est, Upland Marsh/wetland Upland grass, Marsh/ wetland Upland deciduous and con Upland grass and shrub, Marsh/wetland Upland deciduous and con Columbidae Cuculidae Strigidae Strigidae Strigidae Strigidae Caprimulgidae Cuculidae Strigidae Strigidae Strigidae Strigidae Caprimulgidae Zenaida macroura Bubo virginianus Strix varia Asio otus Aegolius acadicus Caprimulgus vociferus Coccyzus americanus Coccyzus Coccyzus erythropthalmus Otus asio Nyctea scandiaca Strix nebulosa Asio flammeus Chordeiles minor Common Name Scientific Name Family l Mourning Dove Cuckoo Black-billed Eastern Screech-Owl HornedGreat Owl Snowy Owl Barred Owl Owl Gray Great Owl Long-eared Short-eared Owl Nighthawk Common Whip-poor-will Yellow-billed Cuckoo Yellow-billed Northern Saw-whet Ow Tamarac NWR (Continued) Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 113 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP RCP RCP Special Status State Federal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r r r r c u u u r c c c a o o u u u u u u c c c c o o u u u u u u Abundance r r r c c c c c a o o u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Isolated Widespread Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Widespread Widespread Isolated ------Habitat Distribution niferous forest niferous Open water during migration, Develop ment Marsh/ Open water, wetland Upland deciduous for est Upland deciduous for est Upland and lowland forest coniferous Upland deciduous for est Upland and lowland forest coniferous Lowland coniferous forest Upland deciduous for est Upland deciduous for est Upland deciduous for est Upland deciduous for est Upland and lowland co Upland deciduous for est Upland deciduous for est Apodidae Alcedinidae Picidae Picidae Picidae Picidae Tyrannidae Tyrannidae Picidae Trochilidae Picidae Picidae Picidae Picidae Tyrannidae Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac ythrocephalus Chaetura pelagica Chaetura Ceryle alcyon carolinus Melanerpes Picoides pubescens Picoides tridactylus Colaptes auratus cooperi Contopus Empidonax flaviventris Archilochus colubris Archilochus Melanerpes er Sphyrapicus varius Picoides villosus Picoides arcticus Dryocopus pileatus Contopus virens - - - - - Common Name Scientific Name Family pecker Chimney Swift Hum Ruby-throated Belted Kingfisher Red-headed Wood Wood Red-bellied pecker Sap - Yellow-bellied sucker Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Wood Three-toed pecker Black-backed Wood Northern Flicker Olive-sided Fylcatcher Fly - Yellow-bellied catcher mingbird pecker Pileated Woodpecker Pileated Eastern Wood-Peweee Bird Species Occurring on Bird Species Occurring Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 114 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP Special Status State Federal Threatened ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r u r r r r r c c c c c c u u u u r r c c c c a u u u Abundance r r r r c c c c c c u u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated ------owland Habitat Distribution est Lowland deciduous forest, L shrub shrub,Lowland shrubUpland for Upland deciduous est for Upland deciduous est for Upland deciduous est Upland grass, Upland brush for Upland deciduous est, Marsh/wetland shrub,Upland Upland grass shrub,Upland Upland grass for Upland deciduous est for Upland deciduous est for Upland deciduous est for Upland deciduous est for Upland deciduous est Upland coniferous for Tyrannidae Tyrannidae Tyrannidae Tyrannidae Laniidae Vireonidae Vireonidae Corvidae Tyrannidae Tyrannidae Tyrannidae Laniidae Vireonidae Vireonidae Vireonidae Empidonax alnorum Empidonax minimus Myiarchus crinitus tyrannus Tyrannus solitarius Vireo Vireo philadelphicus canadensis Perisoreus Lanius excubitor Empidonax trailii Sayornis phoebe verticalis Tyrannus Lanius ludovicianus flavifrons Vireo Vireo gilvus olivaceus Vireo - Common Name Scientific Name Family Alder Flycatcher Flycatcher Willow Least Flycatcher Eastern Phoebe Fly Crested Great catcher Kingbird Western Eastern Kingbird Shrike Loggerhead Vireo Yellow-throated Blue-headed Vireo Warbling Vireo Vireo Philadelphia Red-eyed Vireo Gray Jay Northern Shrike Tamarac NWR (Continued) Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 115 Appendix C: Species Lists Special Status State Federal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r r c a a o u u u r r c c c c c a o u u u u u u c c c c c c o u u u u u Abundance r r c c c c c c a o u u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Widespread Widespread Isolated Widespread Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Widespread Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated - - - - Habitat Distribution ub, Marsh/wetland ub, niferous forest niferous forest niferous etland, Open water etland, Open water Upland grass, Marsh/ w Upland deciduous for est Upland deciduous for shrubest, and grass Upland grass Upland grass, Upland shrub, Marsh/wet water land, Open Upland grass, Marsh/ Open water wetland, Upland grass, Marsh/ Open water wetland, Upland coniferous forest and Upland deciduous forest coniferous Upland grass, Marsh/ w Upland deciduous for est, Upland shrub and Upland deciduous co Upland grass, Upland shr and Upland deciduous co Upland coniferous and deciduous forest Hirundinidae Corvidae Corvidae Alaudidae Hirundinidae Hirundinidae Hirundinidae Paridae Sittidae Hirundinidae Corvidae Corvidae Hirundinidae Paridae Sittidae Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac rhonota ripennis Cyanocitta cristata Corvus brachyrhynchos Eremophila alpestris Tachycineta bicolor Riparia riparia rustica Hirundo hudsonica Poecile Sitta carolinensis Pica hudsonia Corvus corax Progne subis Stelgidopteryx ser Petrochelidon pyr atricapilla Poecile Sitta canadensis - - - Common Name Scientific Name Family hatch Blue Jay Magpie Black-billed Crow American Raven Common Horned Lark Purple Martin Swallow Tree Northern Rough- winged Swallow Bank Swallow Swallow Cliff Barn Swallow Black-capped Chicka Chickadee Boreal Nut Red-breasted Nut White-breasted hatch dee Bird Species Occurring on Bird Species Occurring Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 116 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP RCP Special Status State Federal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r r u r c c c c c c u u u u u u u u c c c c u u u u u Abundance c c c c c c u u u u u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated - - - - owland Habitat Distribution ub and deciduous Upland and lowland Upland and lowland deciduous and conif erous forest shrubUpland Lowland deciduous forest, L shrub Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Marsh/wetland Upland coniferous forest Upland coniferous and deciduous forest Lowland deciduous forest Upland grass, Upland shr forest Upland coniferous forest for Upland deciduous est Upland coniferous forest for Upland deciduous est Upland coniferous and deciduous forest for Upland deciduous est Certhiidae Tryglodytidae Tryglodytidae Regulidae Turdidae Turididae Turdidae Turdidae Tryglodytidae Tryglodytidae Regulidae Sylviidae Turdidae Turididae Turdidae Certhia americana Troglodytes troglodytes Regulus calendula Sialia sialis Catharus fuscescens Catharus ustulatus Hylocichla mustelina Cistothorus palustris Troglodytes aedon Cistothorus platensis Regulus satrapa caerulea Polioptila Myadestes townsendi Catharus minimus Catharus guttatus - Common Name Scientific Name Family Brown Creeper Brown House Wren Wren Winter Sedge Wren King Golden-crowned let Kinglet Ruby-crowned Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Eastern Bluebird Solitaire Townsend's Veer y Thrush Gray-cheeked Swainson's Thrush Hermit Thrush Wood Thrush Marsh Wren Tamarac NWR (Continued) Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 117 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP Special Status State Federal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r r o o o c c c c c o o o u u u u u r c o o o a u u u u Abundance c c c c o o a o u u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Isolated Widespread Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated - - - Habitat Distribution ferous forest, ferous forest, ferous forest, iduous forest niferous forest niferous Upland deciduous forest coniferous and Upland grass Upland deciduous for est Upland grass, Upland shrub, Development Upland coniferous Uplandforest, brush Upland shrub and forest deciduous Upland shrub and forest deciduous Upland and lowland forest coniferous Upland deciuous for est Upland deciduous and Upland deciduous coni Upland deciduous for est, Upland shrub Upland grass Upland shrub, grass and deciduous forest Upland shrub and dec and Upland deciduous co Upland and lowland coni Turdidae Mimidae Sturnidae Bombycillidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Turdidae Mimidae Motacillidae Bombycillidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac Ixoreus naevius Ixoreus Drumetella carolinensis Sturnus vulgaris garrulusBombycilla pinus Vermivora peregrina Vermivora ruficapilla Vermivora Turdus migratorius rufum Toxostoma Anthus rubescens cedrorumBombycilla chrysoptera Vermivora celata Vermivora americana Parula - - Common Name Scientific Name Family bler Varied Thrush Varied Robin American Catbird Gray Thrasher Brown European Starling Pipit American Bohemian Waxwing Waxwing Cedar Blue-winged Warbler Golden-winged War Warbler Tennessee Orange-crowned War Warbler Nashville Parula Northern bler Bird Species Occurring on Bird Species Occurring Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 118 Appendix C: Species Lists - Special Status State Federal Special Con cern ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r c c c c c c a o u u u u u u r r c c c o u u u Abundance r c c c c c c c a o u u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Widespread Widespread Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated - - - - Habitat Distribution iferous forest iferous est est est, Marsh/wet Upland deciduous for Upland deciduous est Lowland shrub,Lowland Marsh/wetland Upland coniferous forest Upland coniferous for Upland deciduous and forest coniferous Upland deciduous and con Upland coniferous and deciduous forest Upland coniferous and deciduous forest Upland coniferous forest coniferous Lowland for land, Upland grass Upland coniferous forest Upland coniferous for Upland and lowland deciduous forest for Upland deciduous est for Upland deciduous est Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Dendroica pensylvanica Dendroica tigrina Dendroica coronata Dendroica fusca Dendroica palmarum Dendroica striata Mniotilta varia Dendroica petechia Dendroica magnolia Dendroica caerulescens Dendroica virens Dendroica pinus Dendroica castanea Dendroica cerulea Setophaga ruticilla - - Common Name Scientific Name Family bler Yellow Warbler Yellow Chestnut-sided War Magnolia Warbler May Warbler Cape Blue Black-throated Warbler War Yellow-rumped bler Green Black-throated Warbler Blackburnian Warbler Pine Warbler Warbler Palm Warbler Bay-breasted Warbler Blackpoll Cerulean Warbler - War Black-and-white bler American Redstart Tamarac NWR (Continued) Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 119 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP RCP RCP Special Status State Federal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r r c c c c c o u u u u u u u r r c c c c u u u u Abundance r c c c c c o u u u u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated ------Habitat Distribution iduous forest ub ub Upland and lowland Upland and lowland forest deciduous Upland and lowland forest, deciduous shrubLowland shrub,Lowland Low land and upland forest deciduous Upland deciduous for est Upland deciduous for est, Upland shrub Upland grass, Upland shrub Upland grass, Upland shrub Upland deciduous for est Upland and lowland dec Low Marsh/wetland, land shrub, Upland grass Upland deciduous for est Upland deciduous for est, Upland shrub Upland grass, Upland shr Upland grass, Upland shr Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Thraupidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Parulidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac Seiurus noveboracensis Oporornis phiadelphia pusilla Wilsonia Piranga olivacea Pipilo erythrophthalmus Spizella passerina Spizella pusilla Seiurus aurocapillus Oporornis agilis Geothlypis trichas canadensis Wilsonia Pipilo maculatus Spizella arborea Spizella pallida - Common Name Scientific Name Family row Ovenbird Northern Waterthrush Connecticut Warbler Mourning Warbler Yellowthroat Common Warbler Wilson's Canada Warbler Scarlet Tanager Spotted Towhee Eastern Towhee Spar Tree American Chipping Sparrow SparrowClay-colored Sparrow Field Bird Species Occurring on Bird Species Occurring Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 120 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP RCP RCP RCP - Special Status State Federal Endangered Special Con cern ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r u r r r c c c c o o u u u u u u u r c a o u u u u u Abundance r r c c c c a o u u u u u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated - - Habitat Distribution ub, Marsh/wetland ub, rub Upland grass, Upland Upland grass, Upland sh Upland grass, Upland shrub Upland grass Marsh/wetland Upland deciduous and forest coniferous shrub,Upland Upland grass shrubUpland Marsh/wetland shrub,Upland for Upland deciduous est Upland coniferous and deciduous forest shrub,Upland for Upland deciduous est Upland coniferous and deciduous forest Upland grass Upland grass, Upland Upland grass, Upland shr Upland grass, Marsh/ wetland Marsh/wetland Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Emberizidae slowii andwichensis Pooecetes gramineus Pooecetes Passerculus s Melospiza melodia Melospiza georgiana Zonotrichia querula hyemalis Junco Ammodramus Ammodramus hen Chondestes grammacus Ammodramus savannarum Ammodramus leconteii illiaca Passerella Melospiza lincolnii Zonotrichia albicollis Zonotrichia leucophrys Calcarius lapponicus Ammodramus nelsoni - - row Common Name Scientific Name Family Vesper Sparrow Lark Sparrow Savannah Sparrow SparrowGrasshopper Conte's SparrowLe Fox Sparrow Song Sparrow SparrowLincoln's Swamp Sparrow Spar White-throated row Harris's Sparrow Spar White-crowned row Dark-eyed Junco Longspur Lapland Henslow's Sparrow Nelson's Sharp-tailed Spar Tamarac NWR (Continued) Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 121 Appendix C: Species Lists RCP RCP RCP RCP Special Status State Federal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r r r r u r r c c a o u u u u u u u u r r r c c c o a o u u u u Abundance r r r c c c c a o u u u u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated Isolated - - - - - Habitat Distribution Upland shrub, Upland deciduous for est Upland shrub, Upland grass Marsh/wetland, Upland grass, Upland shrub Upland grass Lowland coniferous Lowland forest, shrub Upland coniferous and deciduous forest, grass upland Upland deciduous for est, Upland shrub Upland shrub, Upland grass Upland grass Upland deciduous for est Upland grass Upland grass Upland deciduous for grass Upland est, Marsh/wetland, Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Upland deciduous for est Cardinalidae Cardinalidae Icteridae Icteridae Icteridae Icteridae Icteridae Icteridae Emberizidae Cardinalidae Icteridae Icteridae Icteridae Icteridae Icteridae Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac ephalus Cardinalis cardinalis cyanea Passerina Agelaius phoeniceus Sturnella neglecta carolinus Euphagus Quiscalus quiscula Icterus spurius Plectrophenax nivalis Pheucticus ludovicianus oryzivorusDolichonyx Sturnella magna Euphagus cyanoc Molothrus ater Xanthocephalus Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Icterus galbula - Common Name Scientific Name Family Snow Bunting Northern Cardinal Gros Rose-breasted Indigo Bunting Bobolink Blackbird Red-winged Eastern Meadowlark Meadowlark Western Blackbird Rusty Blackbird Brewer's Grackle Common Brown-headed Cow - bird Oriole Orchard beak - Black Yellow-headed bird Oriole Baltimore Bird Species Occurring on Bird Species Occurring Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 122 Appendix C: Species Lists Special Status State Federal ✔ ✔ Breeding Confirmed r o o u u u u u u u u r r r c c c c o o u c o o u u u Abundance r r c c c o o o u u u Sp Su Fa Wi Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated Isolated Widespread Isolated Widespread Isolated Isolated - - - Habitat Distribution d shrubd ub, Upland grass, ub, est Upland coniferous forest for Upland deciduous est for Upland deciduous shrubest, Upland Upland coniferous for Upland coniferous forest Upland and lowland shr Marsh/wetland Upland and lowland shrub, Upland grass, Marsh/wetland Upland coniferous and deciduous forest, Uplan shrub,Upland Upland grass, Marsh/ wetland for Upland deciduous est shrub,Upland Upland grass Fringilidae Fringilidae Fringilidae Fringilidae Fringilidae Fringillidae Fringilidae Fringilidae Fringilidae Fringilidae Passeridae Carpodacus purpureus Carpodacus Loxia curvirostra Carduelis flammea Carduelis pinus Coccothraustes vespertinus Pinicola enucleator Carpodacus mexicanus leucoptera Loxia Carduelis hornemanni Carduelis tristis domesticus Passer Common Name Scientific Name Family Pine Grosbeak Purple Finch House Finch Red Crossbill White-winged Crossbill Redpoll Common Hoary Redpoll Siskin Pine Goldfinch American Grosbeak Evening House Sparrow Tamarac NWR (Continued) Bird Species Occurring on Tamarac

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 123 Appendix C: Species Lists

Occurrence of Butterfly Species, Tamarac NWR

Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat

Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Papilionidae Upland grass

Canadian Tiger Swallowtail Papilio canadensis Papilionidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest

Mustard White Pieris napi Pieridae Upland and lowland deciduous and coniferous forest, Lowland shrub, Upland grass

Cabbage White Pieris rapae Pieridae Upland grass

Clouded Sulphur Colias philodice Pieridae Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Orange Sulphur Colias eurytheme Pieridae Upland grass

Bronze Copper Lycaena hyllus Lycaenidae Marsh/wetland

Purplish Copper Lycaena helloides Lycaenidae Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Eastern Tailed-Blue Everes comynatas Lycaenidae Upland grass

Spring Azure Celastrina ladon Lycaenidae Upland grass, Marsh/wetland, Upland coniferous forest

Great Spangled Fritillary Speyeria cybele Nymphalidae Upland grass

Meadow Fritillary Boloria bellona Nymphalidae Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Northern Crescent Phyciodes selenis Nymphalidae Upland grass

Question Mark Polygonia Nymphalidae Upland deciduous forest, Marsh/wetland interrogationis

Eastern Comma Polygonia comma Nymphalidae Upland deciduous forest, Marsh/wetland

Gray Comma Polygonia progne Nymphalidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest, Marsh/wetland

Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa Nymphalidae Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

White Admiral Limenilis arthemis Nymphalidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland grass

Common Wood-Nymph Cercyonis pegala Nymphalidae Upland grass

Monarch Danaus plexippus Nymphalidae Upland grass

Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor Hesperiidae Marsh/wetland, Upland grass

Northern Broken-Dash Wallengrenia Hesperiidae Upland Grass, Upland shrub egeremet

Delaware Skipper Anatrytone logan Hesperiidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Dion Skipper Euphyes dion Hesperiidae Marsh/wetland

Dun Skipper Euphyes vestris Hesperiidae Marsh/wetland, Upland grass

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 124 Appendix C: Species Lists

Fish Species Occurring on Tamarach NWR

Special Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution Abundance Status Bowfin, Dogfish Amia calva Amiidae Open water Blackbird Occasional Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Cyprinidae Open water Buffalo, Egg, Otter- Abundant tail River, Lost Horneyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus Cyprinidae Open water Ottertail River Common Golden Shiner Notemigonus Cyprinidae Open water Egg River, Blackbird, Common crysoleucas Lost, Pine, Two Island Bigmouth Shiner Notropis dorsalis Cyprinidae Open water Ottertail River Occasional Blackchin Shiner Notropis hetarodon Cyprinidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Common Blackbird, Lost, Two Island Blacknose Shiner Notropis heterolepis Cyprinidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Common Blackbird, Lost, Wau- boose Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius Cyprinidae Open water Cotton Lake Landing Rare Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus Cyprinidae Open water Ottertail River Rare Weed Shiner Notropis texanus Cyprinidae Open water Ottertail River Rare Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus Cyprinidae Open water Cotton Lake Landing Rare Northern Redbelly Phoxinus eos Cyprinidae Open water Buffalo, Ottertail Common Dace River Bluntnose Minnow Pimaphales notatus Cyprinidae Open water Egg River Uncommon Flathead Minnow Pimaphales promelas Cyprinidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Abundant all fishing lakes except Two Island Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Cyprinidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River Abundant Longnose Dace Rhinichthys Cyprinidae Open Water Ottertail River Occasional cataractea Creek Chub Semotilus Cyprinidae Open water Ottertail River Abundant atromaculaus White Sucker Catostromus Catostomidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Common commersoni all 6 fishing lakes Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Ictaluridae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Abundant all 6 fishing lakes Yellow Bullhead Ictalurus natalis Ictaluridae Open water Ottertail River, Black- Uncommon bird, Lost, Tamarac, Wauboose Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Ictaluridae Open water Ottertail River, all 6 Common fishing lakes Tadpole Madtom Noturus gyrinus Ictaluridae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Uncommon Tamarac Northern Pike Esox lucius Esocidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Abundant all 6 fishing lakes Central Mudminnow Umbra limi Umbridae Open water Buffalo, Egg, Otter- Abundant tail River Banded Kilifish Fundulus diaphanus Fundulidae Open water Egg River, Blackbird Rare

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 125 Appendix C: Species Lists

Fish Species Occurring on Tamarach NWR (Continued)

Special Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Distribution Abundance Status Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Gasterosteidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Abundant Blackbird, Lost Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Centrarchidae Open water Ottertail River Common Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Centrarchidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Common Blackbird Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Centrarchidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Common all fishing lakes except Two Island Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Centrarchidae Open water Egg,Ottertail River, Abundant Blackbird, Tamarac, Two Island, Wauboose Hybrid Sunfish Lepomis sp X Centrarchidae Open water Buffalo, Ottertail Common Lepomis sp River, Blackbird, Lost Largemouth Bass Micropterus Centrarchidae Open water Ottertail River, Black- Common salmoides bird, Tamarac Black Crappie Pomoxis Centrarchidae Open water Egg River, Lost, Tam- Common nigromaculatus arac, Wauboose Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile Percidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Abundant Blackbird, Lost, Tam- arac, Two Island, Wau- boose Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Percidae Open water Egg, Ottertail River, Common Lost, Wauboose Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Percidae Open water All Rivers, all 6 fishing Abundant lakes Log Perch Percina caprodes Percidae Open water Cotton Lake Landing Occasional Walleye Sander vitreus Percidae Open water Blackbird, Lost, Tam- Common Fed-RCP arac, Wauboose

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 126 Appendix C: Species Lists

Mammal Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Abundance

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus Soricidae Upland deciduous and coniferous Common forest, Upland grass, Marsh/wetland Hayden's Shrew Sorex haydeni Soricidae Upland Grass, Marsh/wetland Common Water Shrew Sorex palustris Soricidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Uncommon Arctic Shrew Sorex arcticus Soricidae Upland and lowland coniferous forest Uncommon Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Soricidae Upland and lowland coniferous forest Occasional Short-tailed Blarina brevicauda Soricidae Upland and lowland deciduous and Common Shrew coniferous forest, Upland grass, Marsh/ wetland Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata Talpidae Marsh/wetland Uncommon Little Brown Myotis lucifugus Vespertilionidae Upland deciduous and coniferous Uncommon Myotis forest, Upland grass and shrub, Marsh/ wetland Northern Myotis Myotis Vespertilionidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Uncommon septentrionalis Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris Vespertilionidae Upland deciduous forest Occasional noctivagans Eastern Pipist- Pipistrellus Vespertilionidae Upland deciduous forest Uncommon relle subflavus Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Vespertilionidae Upland grass and shrub, Marsh/ Occasional wetland, Upland deciduous forest Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Vespertilionidae Upland grass and shrub, Marsh/ Occasional wetland, Upland deciduous forest Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Vespertilionidae Upland grass and shrub, Marsh/ Occasional wetland, Upland deciduous forest Eastern Sylvilagus Leporidae Upland and lowland shrub, Upland Common Cottontail floridanus grass Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus Leporidae Upland deciduous and coniferous Common forest, Lowland coniferous forest White-tailed Lepus townsendii Leporidae Upland grass Rare Jackrabbit Eastern Tamias striatus Sciuridae Upland deciduous and coniferous Common Chipmunk forest, Upland shrub Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus Sciuridae Upland coniferous forest forest Common Woodchuck Marmota monax Sciuridae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Common Richardson's Spermophilus Sciuridae Upland grass Rare Ground Squirrel richardsonii Thirteen-lined Spermophilus Sciuridae Upland grass Abundant Ground Squirrel tridecemlineatus Franklin's Spermophilus Sciuridae Upland shrub Occasional Ground Squirrel franklinii Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Sciuridae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Common

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 127 Appendix C: Species Lists

Mammal Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued) Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Abundance

Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Sciuridae Upland deciduous forest Rare Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus Sciuridae Upland coniferous and deciduous forest Abundant hudsonicus Northern Flying Glaucomys sabrinus Sciuridae Upland and lowland coniferous forest, Occasional Squirrel Upland deciduous forest Plains Pocket Geomys bursarius Geomyidae Upland grass Common Gopher Beaver Castor canadensis Castoridae Upland deciduous forest, Marsh/ Abundant wetland, Open water Western Harvest Reithrodontomys Cricetidae Upland grass Occasional Mouse megalotis Prairie Deer Peromyscus Cricetidae Upland grass Common Mouse maniculatus bairdii Woodland Deer Peromyscus Cricetidae Upland deciduous forest Common Mouse maniculatis gracilis White-footed Peromyscus leucopus Cricetidae Upland deciduous forest Common Mouse Southern Red- Clethrionomys Cricetidae Upland coniferous and deciduous forest Common backed Vole gapperi Meadow Vole Microtus Cricetidae Upland grass Common pennsylvanicus Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster Cricetidae Upland grass Rare Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Cricetidae Open water, Marsh/wetland Common Southern Bog Synaptomys cooperi Cricetidae Lowland coniferous forest, Marsh/ Occasional Lemming wetland Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus Muridae Upland grass, Development Occasional House Mouse Mus musculus Muridae Upland grass, Development Occasional Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsonicus Zapodidae Marsh/wetland, Upland grass Occasional Mouse Woodland Napaeozapus Zapodidae Lowland coniferous forest Occasional Jumping Mouse insignis Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Erethizontidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Abundant Coyote Canis latrans Canidae Upland deciduous and coniferous Rare forest, Upland shrub and grass Gray Wolf Canis lupus Canidae Upland and lowland deciduous and Uncommon coniferous forest, Upland shrub and grass Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Canidae Upland shrub and grass, Upland Common deciduous forest Gray Fox Urocyon Canidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub Rare cinereoargenteus Black Bear Ursus americanus Ursidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Common

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 128 Appendix C: Species Lists

Mammal Species Occurring on Tamarac NWR (Continued) Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat Abundance

Raccoon Procyon lotor Procyonidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland grass, Abundant Marsh/wetland Fisher Martes pennanti Mustelidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Uncommon Ermine Mustela erminea Mustelidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Common Least Weasel Mustela nivalis Mustelidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland grass Uncommon Long-tailed Mustela frenata Mustelidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub Common Weasel and grass Mink Mustela vison Mustelidae Marsh/wetland, Upland grass, Upland Abundant deciduous forest Badger Taxidea taxus Mustelidae Upland grass Rare Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Mustelidae Upland deciduous forest, Upland shrub Abundant and grass River Otter Lontra canadensis Mustelidae Open water, Upland deciduous forest Abundant Mountain Lion Felis concolor Felidae Upland deciduous and coniferous forest Rare Bobcat Lynx rufus Felidae Upland and lowland deciduous forest Uncommon White-tailed Odocoileus Cervidae Upland and lowland deciduous and Abundant Deer virginianus coniferous forest and shrub, Upland grass, Marsh/wetland Moose Alces alces Cervidae Upland and lowland deciduous and Rare coniferous forest and shrub, Upland grass, Marsh/wetland

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 129

Appendix D: Refuge Species of Concern

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 131 Appendix D: Refuge Species of Concern UMVGL Waterbird UMVGL Waterbird b Rationale for Listing Rationale High populations; population population High populations; control species, threatened Minnesota densities, high breeding state reintroduction original site declines, pop. Continental historical high fall use on Refuge BCR12 species Plan stewardship (moderate priority) Waterbird UMVGL BCR12 Plan high priority Waterbird UMVGL BCR12 Plan high priority Waterbird UMVGL BCR12 Plan moderate priority 3 nesting colonies on Refuge concern special Minnesota species Minnesota Special Concern species st st a ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Need Greate Species in Conservation Conservation ✔ ✔ Special Special Concern State Status ned

T (T) (E) or Threate Endangered ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ riority P Species Region 3 Conservation or T (T) (E) Federal Status Federal Threatened Endangered Habitat Lake Lake Forest Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Lake Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands lands Open Forest Unknown Refuge Species of Concern, Tamarac NWR Refuge Species of Concern, Tamarac Not resently resently P on Refuge ✔ ✔ Migratory cies Spe Transient Presence on the Refuge the on Presence ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Currently on Refuge Species Birds Canada Goose Canada Goose (resident) Wood Duck Mallard Blue-winged Teal Duck Ring-necked Scaup Lesser Grebe Red-necked Least Bittern Bald Eagle Trumpter Swan Trumpter Loon Common BitternAmerican Great Blue Heron Red-shouldered Hawk

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 132 Appendix D: Refuge Species of Concern Rationale for Listing for Rationale BCR12 PIF-Regional BCR12 PIF-Regional species stewardship Waterbird BCR12 UMVGL Plan high priority Waterbird BCR12 UMVGL priority Plan low Waterbird BCR12 UMVGL priority Plan low Shorebird BCR12 UMVGL Plan high priority ConcernMinnesota Special BCR12 UMVGL species, Priority Moderate Waterbird Waterbird BCR12 UMVGL Plan high priority BCR12 PIF-Regional significant species, stewardship (NRRI) declines regional concern BCR12 PIF-Regional species declines regional Significant (NRRI) BCR12 PIF-Regional species stewardship a ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Need Greatest Species in Conservation ✔ ✔ Special Concern (T) (E) or Threatened Endangered ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Priority Species Region 3 Conservation Conservation (T) (E) or Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac Threatened Endangered Forest Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Shrubland/ Forest Wetlands Wetlands Forest Forest Forest Shurbland/ Forest Forest Forest Forest Not Presently Refuge Species of Concern, on Refugeon Unknown Species Migratory Transient Presence on the Refuge the on Presence Habitat Status Federal Status State ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Currently on Refuge Species oodpecker Broad-winged Hawk Virgina Rail American Woodcock Black Tern Woodpecker Downy Hairy Woodpecker Northern Flicker Eastern Wood- Pewee Yellow Rail Yellow Sora Rail Tern Forster's Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Pileated W Least Flycatcher

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 133 Appendix D: Refuge Species of Concern Rationale for Listing Rationale Nuisance species -nest species Nuisance predation PIF-Regional BCR12 species stewardship concern PIF-Regional BCR12 species species & stewardship & PIF-Continental BCR12 concernregional species with Golden- Hybridization winged warblers PIF-Continental BCR12 concern regional & species 40 percent stewardship species, population in of global Minnesota & PIF-Continental BCR12 regional stewardship species & PIF-Continental BCR12 regional stewardship species regional declines Significant (NRRI), vulnerable forest habitat interior a ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Need Greatest Species in Conservation Conservation Special Special Concern (T) (E) or Threatened Endangered ✔ ✔ ✔ Priority Species Region 3 Conservation (T) (E) or (E) Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac Threatened Endangered Forest Forest lands Open Wetlands/ Grasslands Forest Forest Shrublands /Forest Shrublands /Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Shrublands /Forest Forest Not Refuge Species of Concern, Presently Presently on Refuge Unknown ✔ Species Migratory Transient Presence Refugeon the Presence Habitat Status Federal Status State ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Currently on Refuge Species rbler rbler Great Crested Flycatcher Vireo Red-eyed Crow American Veery Blue-winged Warbler Black-throated Warbler Green Warbler Pine Black & White Warbler Redstart American Ovenbird Sedge Wren Wood Thrush Golden-winged Wa Blackburnian Wa

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 134 Appendix D: Refuge Species of Concern Rationale for Listing for Rationale earer trapping earer BCR12 PIF-Regional concern BCR12 PIF-Regional species & BCR12 PIF-Continental species stewardship regional BCR12 PIF-Continental species stewardship BCR12 PIF-Regional significant species, stewardship (NRRI) declines regional - nest Nuisance species parasitism concern BCR12 PIF-Regional species species, Threatened Fed. Minnesota special concern species -nest Nuisance species predation -nest Nuisance species predation Inventory - & monitoring need furb a ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Need Greatest Species in Conservation Special Concern (T) (E) or Threatened Endangered ✔ ✔ Priority Species Region 3 Conservation Conservation T (T) (E) or Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac Threatened Endangered Tamarac Shrublands /Forest Forest Shrublands /Forest Wetland Forest Shrublands /Forest Open lands/ Forest Forest Forest Open lands Forest Forest Not Presently Refuge Species of Concern, on Refugeon Unknown ✔ Species Migratory Transient Presence on the Refuge the on Presence Habitat Status Federal Status State ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Currently on Refuge Species Connecticut Warbler Scarlet Tanager Eastern Towhee Swamp Sparrow Indigo Bunting Brown-headed Cowbird Purple Finch Mammals Gray Wolf Raccoon Mourning Warbler Rose-breasted Grosbeak Red Fox Fisher

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 135 Appendix D: Refuge Species of Concern Rationale for Listing Rationale Inventory need - & monitoring nest trapping, furbearer predation -nest species Nuisance predation species, Endangered Fed. concern special Minnesota species Inventory need - & monitoring trapping furbearer population High populations; habitat for needed control management stable species, Stewardship in Minnesota, declining pop. inventoryregion, need Nuisance species - impacts on level rice & water wild inventorymanagement, need Nuisance species - potential unmanaged high damage, tree pops. Minnesota Special concern species a ✔ ✔ ✔ Need Greatest Species in Conservation Conservation Special Special Concern (T) (E) or Threatened Endangered ✔ Priority Species Region 3 Conservation (T) (E) or (E) Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac Threatened Endangered Wetlands Lake lands Open Forest Forest lands/ Open Forest Grassland Wetlands Forest ✔ ✔ Not Refuge Species of Concern, Presently Presently on Refuge Unknown Species Migratory Transient Presence Refugeon the Presence Habitat Status Federal Status State ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Currently on Refuge rel Species Northern River Otter Canada Lynx Deer White-tailed Beaver Reptiles Turtle Snapping Amphibians None listed at this time Striped Skunk Bobcat Franklin's GroundSquir Porcupine

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 136 Appendix D: Refuge Species of Concern Rationale for Listing for Rationale Nuisance - competition with Nuisance - competition waterfowl freshwater for shrimp Nuisance – potential habitat degradation/destruction, River present in Ottertail (south of Refuge) DNR and tribal stocking programs DNR/FWS/WEBD stocking protection adjacent Refuge, status needed for Refuge DNR stocking adjacent Refuge ConcernMinnesota Special species for waterfowl staple Important & Native Americans, contributes to Refuge purpose – control species Invasive necessary a ✔ ✔ Need Greatest Species in Conservation ✔ Special Concern (T) (E) or Threatened Endangered ✔ ✔ Priority Species Region 3 Conservation Conservation (T) (E) or Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac Threatened Endangered Wetlands Lake Lake Lake Lake ✔ ✔ ✔ Not Presently Refuge Species of Concern, on Refugeon Unknown Species Migratory Transient Presence on the Refuge the on Presence Habitat Status Federal Status State ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Breeding Currently on Refuge Species Fishes Fathead Minnow Carp Common Lake Sturgeon Spiders None listed at this time Insects Skipper Poweshiek Mollusks None listed at this time Plants Wild Rice Leafy Spurge Walleye Muskellunge

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 137 Appendix D: Refuge Species of Concern Rationale for Listing Rationale Invasive species – control Invasive species necessary – control Invasive species necessary Minnesota Special Concern species a Need Greatest Species in Conservation Conservation Special Special Concern (T) (E) or Threatened Endangered Priority Species Region 3 Conservation (T) (E) or (E) Tamarac NWR (Continued) Tamarac Threatened Endangered ✔ Strategy Species in Greatest Conservation Need Not Refuge Species of Concern, Presently Presently on Refuge Unknown Species Migratory Transient Presence Refugeon the Presence Habitat Status Federal Status State ✔ ✔ Breeding Currently on Refuge Species a. Conservation Minnesota Comprehensive Wildlife b. = NABCI Bird Conservation BCR Region Spotted Knapweed Loosestrife Purple Native Plant Communities Red and White Pine communities Jack Pine Communities Goblin Fern Goblin

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 138 Appendix E: Bibliography and References Cited

Appendix E: Bibliography and References Cited

Albert, D. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Frehlich, L.E. and P.B. Reich. 1996. Old growth in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a work- the Great Lakes region. Pp. 144-160 in M.B. ing map and classification. United States For- Davis, ed., Eastern old-growth forests: pros- est Service, North Central Forest Experiment pects for rediscovery and recovery. Island Station., St. Paul, MN. Press, Washington, D.C. Almendinger, J.E. 1988. Lake and groundwater Frehlich, L.E. 2002. Forest dynamics and distur- paleohydrology: A groundwater model to bance regimes. Cambridge University Press, explain past lake levels in west-central Minne- Cambridge, UK. sota. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota. Green. J., 1995. Birds and Forest, a Management Carson, T.L. 2002. the effects of sedment nutrient and Conservation Guide. State of Minnesota, variation, water depth, and emergent aquatic perennials on wild rice (Zizania palustris) pro- Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul, Minne- duction at the Rice lake National Wildlife Ref- sota. 182 pages. uge. Thesis, University of Minnesota, Hale, C.M. 2004. Ecological consequences of exotic Minneapolis, USA. invaders: interactions involving European Crozier, G.E. and G.J. Niemi. 2003. Using patch and earthworms and native plant communities in landscape variables to model bird abundance hardwood forests. Ph.D. dissertation. Univer- in a naturally heterogeneous landscape. Cana- sity of Minnesota, Department of Forest dian Journal of Zoology 81:441-452. Resources, St. Paul, MN Dai, X., Boutton, T. W., Hailemichael, M., Ansley, R. Holling, C.S. and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and J., Jessup, K. E. 2006. Soil Carbon and Nitro- control and the pathology of natural resource gen Storage in Response to Fire in a Temper- management. Conservation Biology 10:328- ate Mixed-Grass Savanna. J Environ Qual. 35: 337. 1620-1628. Hunter, M. L., Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and for- Devine, B. 1999. Clear-cut mission: communities estry. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, unite to free native landscapes from the grip NJ. of invasive species. Nature Conservancy Iverson, L.R., A.M. Prasad, B.J. Hale and E.K. 49:12-17. Sutherland. 1999. Atlas of current and poten- Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The tial future distributions of common trees of birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural the eastern United States. U. S. Forest Ser- history of North American birds. Simon and vice, Northeastern Research Station, General Schuster Inc., New York. Technical Report NE-265. Engstrom, F.B. and D.H. Mann. 1991. Fire ecology Johnson, W.C., B.V. Millett, T. Gilmanov, R.A. Vold- of red pine (Pinus resinosa) in northern Ver- seth, G.R. Guntenspergen, D.E. Naugle 2005. mont, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Vulnerability of northern prairies wetlands to Research 21:882-889 climate change. BioScience 55: 863-877. Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species landscapes and regions. Cambridge Univer- umbrella for nature conservation. Conserva- sity Press, Cambridge, U.K. tion Biology 11:849-856.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 139 Appendix E: Bibliography and References Cited

Leopold, A. 1933. Game Management. University of Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines and J. Fallon. 2005. The Wisconsin Press, Charles Scribner’s Sons, North American Breeding Bird Survey, New York, NY. results and analysis 1966 - 2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Matteson, S., A. Paulios, G. Bartelt, G. Butcher, D. Center, Laurel, MD. Sample, J. Fitzgerald, G. Niemi, J. Hanowski and R. Howe. In Review. Partner’s in Flight Schroeder, Richard L., Wayne J. King, and John E. Conservation Plan for the Boreal Hardwood Cornely. 1998. Selecting habitat management Transition (Physiographic Area 20 and Bird strategies on refuges. Information and Tech- Conservation Region 12, USA). nology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR – 1998-003. U.S. Geological Survey. McAndrews, J.H. 1996. Postglacial history of prairie, savanna and forest in northwestern Min- Seymour, R.S. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1999. Princi- nesota. Torry Botanical Club, Memoir 23(2): ples of Ecological Forestry. Ch. 2 (p. 22-61) 1-72. In: Managing Biodiversity in Forest Ecosys- tems. M.L. Hunter, Jr., editor. Cambridge Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2005. Sources University Press, Cambridge. of mercury pollution and methylmercury Simberloff, D. 1997. Flagships, umbrellas, and key- Contamination of fish in Minnesota. Pollution pre- stones: is single species management passé in vention and sustainability fact sheet #4-06. 3 the landscape era. Biological Conservation pp. On the Internet at http:// 83:247-257. www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/p-p2s4- 06.pdf Stevenson, I.R. and D.M. Bryant. 2000. Climate change and constraints on breeding. Nature Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2006. 406:366-367. Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare: Tester, J.R. 1995. Minnesota’s Natural Heritage: An An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife, Comprehen- Ecological Perspective. University of Minne- sive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Division sota Press, Minneapolis. 332 pp. of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Services Noss, R. F. and J. M. Scott. 1997. Ecosystem protec- Review Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- tion and restoration: the core of ecosystem vice. 35 pages. management. Pages 239-264 in M. A. Boyce and A. W. Haney, eds. Ecosystem manage- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. A Cultural ment: concepts and methods. Yale University Resources Reconnaissance of Tamarac Press, New Haven, CT. National Wildlife Refuge, 1977, Phase 1. Pre- pared by Clifford W. Watson and Jerry W. Rich, T. D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Oothoudt, Terra Archaeological Services, Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S.Butcher, Minneapolis, Minnesota. D.W. Demarest and E.H. Dunn. W.C. Hunter, E.E. Inigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, United States Forest Service. 2003. Regional For- A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, ester Sensitive Animals. C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American landbird U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Banking on conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local Ithaca, NY. Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visi- tation. 2007. Division of Economics,U.S. Fish Root, T. L. and S. H. Schneider. 1995. Ecology and and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. climate: research strategies and implications. Science 269:334-339. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priori- Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. ties: Region 3. Fort Snelling, MN. Rosenzweig and J.A. Pounds. 2003. Finger- prints of global warming on wild animals and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Ful- plants. Nature 421:57-60. filling the Promise: The National Wildlife Ref- uge System. Arlington, VA. 94 pages. Sallabanks, R. and E.B. Arnett. 2005. Accomodating birds in managed forests in North America: a United States Census Bureau 2005. http://www.cen- review of bird-forestry relationships. USDA sus.gov/popest/estimates.php Forest Service PSW-GTR-191.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 140 Appendix E: Bibliography and References Cited

U. S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Eco- nomic Analysis. Regional Economic Accounts. www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/data.htm. Washington, D.C. August 2007. Zicus, M.C., D.P. Rave, J. Fieberg, J. Giudice, and R. Wright. 2005. Minnesota’s ring-necked ducks: a pilot breeding pair survey. Pages 137- 158 in P.J. Wingate, R.O. Kimmel, J.S. Law- rence, and M.S. Lenarz, editors. Summaries of wildlife research findings 2004. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 141

Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403) ues into account and adopt justifiable protection measures to obtain maximum overall project ben- Section 10 of this Act requires the authorization efits. A 1958 amendment added provisions to rec- by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to ognize the vital contribution of wildlife resources any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water to the Nation and to require equal consideration of the United States. and coordination of wildlife conservation with Antiquities Act of 1906. 16 U.S.C. 431 et seq. other water resources development programs. It also authorized the Secretary of Interior to pro- Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiqui- vide public fishing areas and accept donations of ties on federal land and provides penalties for lands and funds. unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit. Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Also known as the Duck Stamp Act, 16 U.S.C. 718 et seq. (1934) Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. Requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age Designates the protection of migratory birds as a or older to carry a stamp and earmarks proceeds federal responsibility. This Act enables the set- of the Duck Stamps to buy or lease waterfowl ting of seasons, and other regulations including habitat. A 1958 amendment authorizes the acqui- the closing of areas, federal or non federal, to the sition of small wetland and pothole areas to be hunting of migratory birds. designated as ‘Waterfowl Production Areas,’ which may be acquired without the limitations Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 715 et and requirements of the Migratory Bird Conser- seq. vation Act.

Establishes procedures for acquisition by pur- Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act. Also chase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the known as the Historic Sites Act of 1935, 16 U.S.C. Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 461 et seq. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 U.S.C. 661 et Declares it a national policy to preserve historic seq. (1934) sites and objects of national significance, includ- Requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service and ing those located on refuges. Provides procedures state fish and wildlife agencies be consulted for designation, acquisition, administration, and whenever water is to be impounded, diverted or protection of such sites. modified under a federal permit or license. The Service and state agency recommend measures to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to mitigate or compensate for the damage. The project proponent must take biological resource val-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 143 Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act,16 U.S.C. 715s (1935) Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 16 U.S.C. 460 et seq. Requires revenue sharing provisions to all fee- title ownerships that are administered solely or Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus federal primarily by the Secretary through the Service. land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition under several Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife authorities. Conservation Purposes Act, 16 U.S.C. 667b-667d (1948) National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee Provides that upon a determination by the Administrator of the General Services Adminis- Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and tration, real property no longer needed by a fed- authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a eral agency can be transferred without refuge provided such use is compatible with the reimbursement to the Secretary of Interior if the major purposes for which the refuge was estab- land has particular value for migratory birds, or lished. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly to a state agency for other wildlife conservation defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; purposes. establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wild- Federal Records Act of 1950, 44 U.S.C. 31 life observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation); establishes a Directs the preservation of evidence of the gov- formal process for determining compatibility; ernment's organization, functions, policies, deci- established the responsibilities of the Secretary sions, operations, and activities, as well as basic of Interior for managing and protecting the Sys- historical and other information. tem; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq. Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act Established a comprehensive national fish and and National Wildlife Refuge System Adminis- wildlife policy and broadened the authority for tration Act of 1966. acquisition and development of refuges. National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 et Refuge Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq. (1962) seq. (1966) Allows the use of refuges for recreation when Establishes as policy that the federal government such uses are compatible with the refuge's pri- is to provide leadership in the preservation of the mary purposes and when sufficient funds are nation's prehistoric and historic resources. Sec- available to manage the uses. tion 106 requires federal agencies to consider impacts their undertakings could have on historic Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. properties; Section 110 requires federal agencies Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10 to manage historic properties, e.g., to document years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or historic properties prior to destruction or dam- more acres and every roadless island (regardless age; Section 101 requires federal agencies to con- of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and sider Indian tribal values in historic preservation National Park Systems and to recommend to the programs, and requires each federal agency to President the suitability of each such area or establish a program leading to inventory of all island for inclusion in the National Wilderness historic properties on its land. Preservation System, with final decisions made by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151 et directed to study and recommend suitable areas seq. in the National Forest System. Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 144 Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 Executive Order 11988 (1977) U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Each federal agency shall provide leadership and Requires the disclosure of the environmental take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and impacts of any major federal action significantly minimize the impact of floods on human safety, affecting the quality of the human environment. and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by the floodplains. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601 et Executive Order 11990 seq. Executive Order 11990 directs federal agencies to Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of persons who sell their homes, businesses, or wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the natu- farms to the Service. The Act requires that any ral and beneficial values of wetlands when a prac- purchase offer be no less than the fair market tical alternative exists. value of the property. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et of Federal Programs) seq. Directs the Service to send copies of the Environ- Requires all federal agencies to carry out pro- mental Assessment to state planning agencies for grams for the conservation of endangered and review. threatened species. American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq. 1996, 1996a (1976) Requires programmatic accessibility in addition Directs agencies to consult with native traditional to physical accessibility for all facilities and pro- religious leaders to determine appropriate policy grams funded by the federal government to changes necessary to protect and preserve Amer- ensure that anybody can participate in any pro- ican Indian religious cultural rights and prac- gram. tices.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 16 Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C.469-469c U.S.C. 742a Directs the preservation of historic and archaeo- Improves the administration of fish and wildlife logical data in federal construction projects. programs and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.S.C. 1251 Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes Requires consultation with the Corps of Engi- the Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real neers (404 permits) for major wetland modifica- and personal property on behalf of the United tions. States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of Service projects and appropriations to carry out a volunteer program. 1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. Regulates surface mining activities and reclama- Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, tion of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the 16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq. coal industry by designating certain areas as Protects materials of archaeological interest from unsuitable for coal mining operations. unauthorized removal or destruction and requires federal managers to develop plans and schedules to locate archaeological resources.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 145 Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Farmland Protection Policy Act, Public Law 97-98, ners, avoid adversely affecting the physical integ- 7 U.S.C. 4201 (1981) rity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. Minimizes the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 Considered the “Organic Act of the National U.S.C. 3901 et seq. Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of the System, designates priority wildlife-depen- Promotes the conservation of migratory water- dent public uses, and calls for comprehensive ref- fowl and offsets or prevents the serious loss of uge planning. Section 6 requires the Service to wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other make a determination of compatibility of existing, essential habitats. new and changing uses of Refuge land; and Sec- tion 7 requires the Service to identify and Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, 7 U.S.C. 2801 et describe the archaeological and cultural values of seq. the refuge. Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant spe- The Act also directs the administration of the cies, and an interdisciplinary approach with the Refuge System to ensure the biological integrity, cooperation of other federal and state agencies. diversity, and environmental health of the Sys- tem. According to the U.S. FWS Service Manual Native American Graves Protection and (601 FW3) this refers to the maintenance of exist- Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. (1990) ing elements, and where appropriate the restoration of lost or severely degraded elements. Requires federal agencies and museums to inven- Integrity pertains to biotic composition, struc- tory, determine ownership of, and repatriate culture, and function at genetic, organismal, and tural items under their control or possession. community levels. Diversity includes protection of the broad variety of living organisms, genetic Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. distinctions, and community compositions. Envi- 12101 et seq. ronmental health recognizes the importance of Prohibits discrimination in public accommoda- both biotic and abiotic features and processes in tions and services. the System. The standard of measure for each of these terms is defined using historic conditions, Executive Order 12898 (1994) or conditions and processes present prior to substantial anthropogenic changes, as indicated by Establishes environmental justice as a federal the best available science and sound professional government priority and directs all federal agen- judgment. cies to make environmental justice part of their mission. Environmental justice calls for fair dis- National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and tribution of environmental hazards. Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998, 16 U.S.C. 742a Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to pro- (1996) mote volunteer programs and community partnerships for the benefit of national wildlife Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public refuges, and for other purposes. uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also presents four principles to guide manage- National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq. ment of the System. (1968) Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996) Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Inte- rior and thus the Service to protect the historic Directs federal land management agencies to and recreational values of congressionally desig- accommodate access to and ceremonial use of nated National Historic Trail sites. Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitio-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 146 Appendix F: Compliance Requirements

Treasury and General Government Appropriations requires archeological investigations on federal Act, Pub. L. 106-554, §1(a)(3), Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. land be performed in the public interest by quali- 2763, 2763A–125 fied persons. In December 2002, Congress required federal The Native American Graves Protection and agencies to publish their own guidelines for Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) imposes ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, serious delays on a project when human remains utility, and integrity of information that they dis- or other cultural items are encountered in the seminate to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502). The absence of a plan. amended language is included in Section 515(a). The Office of Budget and Management (OMB) The American Indian Religious Freedom Act directed agencies to develop their own guidelines (AIRFA) iterates the right of Native Americans to address the requirements of the law. The to free exercise of traditional religions and use of Department of the Interior instructed bureaus to sacred places. prepare separate guidelines on how they would apply the Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996), directs fed- has developed “Information Quality Guidelines” eral agencies to accommodate access to and cere- to address the law. monial use, to avoid adverse effects and avoid blocking access, and to enter into early consulta- Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation tion. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improve- ment Act of 1997, Section 6, requires the Service to make a determination of compatibility of existing, new and changing uses of Refuge land; and Section 7 requires the Service to identify and describe the archaeological and cultural values of the refuge.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 106, requires federal agencies to consider impacts their undertakings could have on historic properties; Section 110 requires federal agencies to manage historic properties, e.g., to document historic properties prior to destruction or damage; Section 101 requires federal agencies consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation programs, and requires each federal agency to establish a program leading to inventory of all historic properties on its land.

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) prohibits unauthorized disturbance of archeological resources on federal and Indian land; and other matters. Section 10 requires establishing “a program to increase public awareness” of archeological resources. Section 14 requires plans to survey lands and a schedule for surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable archaeological resources.” This Act requires protection of all archeological sites more than 100 years old (not just sites meeting the criteria for the National Register) on federal land, and

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 147

Appendix G: Collier Agreement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 149 Appendix G: Collier Agreement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 150 Appendix G: Collier Agreement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 151 Appendix G: Collier Agreement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 152 Appendix G: Collier Agreement

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 153

Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Archeological Investigations...... 156 Mushroom, Nuts and Berry Picking...... 158 Environmental Education, Interpretation and Outreach ...... 160 Firewood Cutting (non commercially) Timber Harvest (Commercial)...... 163 Sport Fishing ...... 166 Hunting...... 169 Wildlife Observation and Photography ...... 172 Research ...... 174 Trapping of Furbearers...... 176 Tamarac Wetland Management District Establishing Food Plots for Resident Wildlife...... 179 Native Grassland Seeding and Weed Control ...... 181 Prescribed Grazing...... 183 Haying and Mowing ...... 186 Establishing and Maintaining Nesting Structures for Migratory Birds...... 189 Temporal Upland Disturbance for Right-of-way Projects and Full Restoration...... 191 Wood Cutting/Timber Harvest...... 193

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 155 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Archeological Investigations When is the use conducted? Permitted investigations can occur at any time of the year although usu- Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge ally not during the winter. Investigations may be as (Refuge) short as a few hours or go on for months, depending Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive on the research objective. These permitted investi- Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Con- gations occur on the Refuge because this is where servation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting the resource is found or where the resource could be Stamp Act. disrupted. Refuge Purpose(s): How is the use conducted? Archeologists request Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was estab- permits or Antiquities Act permits to conduct "Sur- lished in 1938… veys and limited testing and limited collections on lands identified" and "Excavation, collection and  “... as a refuge and breeding ground for intensive study of specific sites described" on Ref- migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” uge land. Permits are issued by the Regional Direc- Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938 tor to qualified archeologists. The ARPA permit,  “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any along with a detailed project description, are sub- other management purpose, for migratory mitted to the Refuge Manager for issuance of a spe- birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird cial use permit to archeologists prior to Conservation Act) investigation. The special use permit will define  “... conservation, management, and restoration allowable dates and times for the investigation, and of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and other management controls. their habitats for the benefit of present and Why is the use being proposed? Archeological future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. in 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System vestigations are not priority public uses on Administration Act) National Wildlife Refuge System Lands as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a Act of 1997. However, allowing access to the Refuge national network of lands and waters for the conser- for this activity will serve to protect vulnerable vation, management, and where appropriate, resto- resources through identification of location and ration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their assessment of condition. habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. Availability of Resources: Description of Use: The Refuge has resources available to administer this use. This activity will require the Refuge Man- What is the use? Permitted archeological investi- ager to develop and issue a Special Use Permit and gations on Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge are random inspections of the project area. ARPA/ those requested by archeologists who are not per- Antiquities permits are received by the Regional forming the investigation for Refuge management Historic Preservation Officer and issued by the purposes (e.g., Section 106 of the National Historic Regional Director as part of normal duties. Preservation Act). Rather, permitted archeologists are pursuing their own or institutional research or Anticipated Impacts of the Use: are working for other parties that will be conducting Impacts from routine pedestrian surveys, soil activities on Service land, or as requested by the coring, shovel tests, and land form analysis are lim- Governor of Minnesota or Chairwoman of White Earth Reservation, and similar third party activities ited to short-term disturbance to wildlife using the on lands of the National Wildlife Refuge System. immediate area and disruption of vegetative cover for growing season on an extremely small area Where is the use conducted? Permits can be for affected by shovel tests. anyplace on Service owned lands, but each permit is Impacts from a large scale excavation are poten- for specific lands (i.e., no general archeological per- tially longer term (several growing seasons) with mits are authorized). associated wildlife disturbance impacts affecting

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 156 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

animals in the immediate area and vegetation cover It does not materially interfere with or detract from disruption severe enough to require site re-grading the Service’s ability to meet the mission of the and reseeding of the area to desired native species. National Wildlife Refuge System. Public Review and Comment: The activities follow all applicable laws, regulations and policies; including Migratory Bird Conser- This compatibility determination was part of the vation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Compre- National Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National hensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmen- Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and tal Assessment. Public notification and review Refuge goals and objectives. These activities are includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- compliant with the purpose of the Refuge and the eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Operat- announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. ing this activity does not alter the Refuge's ability to Comments received and agency responses will be meet habitat goals and it helps support several of included in the final CCP. the primary objectives of the Refuge. Determination: Signature: _____ Use is not compatible. Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  X Use is compatible with the following stipu- Sept. 7, 2010 lations. Concurrence: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020 Refuge System and Refuge goals and objectives, archeological investigations can only occur under the following stipulations: 1. Applicant must obtain a Special Use Permit issued by the Refuge Manager. The Special Use Permit is to prescribe administrative or management restrictions required by the Refuge Manager. 2. Permittee will shore up walls of test pits and trenches in accordance with OSHA standards; will flag, barricade, and sign testing areas as necessary to prevent injury to the public; will refill shovel tests as soon as excavated and data recorded including replacing the vegetative plug to restore original conditions; will backfill excavations as soon as data recording is completed and seed the surface with a grass or other vegetative mix approved by the Ref- uge Manager. 3. Predetermined stipulations on ARPA/Antiq- uities permits and the requirements in 43 CFR Part 7, "Protection of Archaeological Resources: Uniform Regulations," contain protective measures to be accomplished by archeologists. Justification: This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. It promotes public stewardship of natural resources and helps the Refuge meet its goals and objectives.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 157 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Mushroom, Nuts and Berry Picking tember through February. However most of the activity is concentrated during the few weeks when Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge the fruits ripen. (Refuge) How is the use conducted? This is an activity that Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive is often done in conjunction with other activities that Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Con- are wildlife dependent, such as wildlife observation servation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting and photography. Access to harvest sites is accom- Stamp Act. plished by walking from a designated parking area, Refuge Purpose(s): public roadway or trail. All harvesting is done by hand. Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1938: Why is the use being proposed? Mushroom, nut and berry picking are traditional outdoor activities  “... as a refuge and breeding ground for that bring families to the Refuge. It allows them to migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” collect wholesome, healthy foods while enjoying the Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938 natural environment.  “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any Availability of Resources: other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird There is little or no cost to administer this pro- Conservation Act) gram. It occurs in conjunction with other public uses  “... conservation, management, and restoration and participation is low. of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and Anticipated Impacts of the Use: their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. Historically, public participation in mushroom, 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System nut and berry picking has been low and future par- Administration Act) ticipation is also expected to be low. Most activity National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a occurs adjacent to existing roads and trails, there- national network of lands and waters for the conser- fore disturbance to wildlife will be minimal. The rel- vation, management, and where appropriate, resto- atively few mushrooms, nuts and berries harvested ration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their will not significantly reduce the food source for wild- habitats within the United States for the benefit of life. present and future generations of Americans. Public Review and Comment: Description of Use: This compatibility determination was part of the What is the use? Non-commercial harvest of Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Compre- mushrooms, nuts and berries for human consump- hensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmen- tion, primarily chokecherries, high bush cranber- tal Assessment. Public notification and review ries, raspberries, acorns, hazelnuts and morel includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- mushrooms. eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. Where is the use conducted? These activities may Comments received and agency responses will be occur throughout the 42,738 acres of the Refuge. included in the final CCP. Approximately 50 people participate in this activity annually, and most access areas adjacent to existing Determination: roads and trails. _____ Use is not compatible. When is the use conducted? Mushroom, nut and X Use is compatible with the following stipu- berry picking are authorized year-round in the Visi- lations. tor Use Area (that part of the Refuge south of County Road 26) and in the Sanctuary Area (that part of the Refuge north of County Road 26) Sep-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 158 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All users must comply with Refuge-specific regulations. Justification: This use has little impact to wildlife or habitat since it is recreational in nature and few people participate. In addition, a relatively small portion of the Refuge is accessed by mushroom, nut and berry pickers, because most Refuge trails are not open to motorized vehicles. Ocular estimates of picked over areas reveal a very low percentage of total fruit picked, so no appreciable effect on wildlife mast is anticipated. This activity provides hours of enjoy- able recreation and promotes a positive image of the Refuge. Signature: Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  Sept. 7, 2010 Concurrence: Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 159 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Environmental Education, Interpretation tion, often times involving pre- and post-visit discus- and Outreach sions and multiple station visits. Interpretation is a communication process that forges emotional and Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge intellectual connections between the interests of the (Refuge) audience and the inherent meanings in the resource Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive (i.e., more than information). Interpretation occurs Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Con- in less formal activities with Refuge staff and volun- servation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting teers or through exhibits, signs, brochures, ele- Stamp Act. ments of special events, and tours. Outreach is a two-way communication between the Service and Refuge Purpose(s): the public to establish mutual understanding, promote involvement, and influence attitudes and Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was estab- actions, with the goal of improving joint stewardship lished in 1938… of our natural resources. Examples of outreach  “... as a refuge and breeding ground for include news releases, newsletters, websites, off-site migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” displays, and participation in community partner- Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938 ships.  “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any Where is the use conducted? Environmental edu- other management purpose, for migratory cation and interpretation activities may occur off- birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird site or on-site throughout the Refuge, but are most Conservation Act) likely to occur in the vicinity of the headquarters,  “... conservation, management, and restoration Visitor Center, wildlife drive, trails and roads. Visi- of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and tors are greeted with a variety of interpretive dis- their habitats for the benefit of present and plays and signs as they traverse the trails, wildlife future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. drive, and observation platforms or explore the Visi- 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System tor Center. The Refuge also maintains a website Administration Act) that provides interpretive information. Environ- National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a mental education and interpretive programs are national network of lands and waters for the conser- given upon request to schools and other groups vis- vation, management, and where appropriate, resto- iting the Refuge. Back-country tours and interpre- ration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their tive programs are offered weekly during the spring habitats within the United States for the benefit of and summer months and monthly during the winter. present and future generations of Americans. Special events are conducted throughout the year. Off-site activities consist of teacher workshops, par- Description of Use: ticipation in special events, and the sharing of wildlife education trunks. University natural resource What is the use? Environmental education is a classes may conduct in-depth explorations of the process designed to develop a citizenry that has the Refuge habitats. awareness, concern, knowledge, attitudes, skills, motivations and commitment to work toward solu- When is the use conducted? The Refuge Visitor tions of current environmental problems and the Center is open year-round Monday through Sunday prevention of new ones. Environmental education from May 15th to October 15th and Monday within the National Wildlife Refuge System incor- through Friday the rest of the year and hosts 65,000 porates on-site, off-site, and distance learning mate- visitors annually. Interpretation occurs, throughout rials, activities, programs, and products that the year, whenever a visitor reads a sign, brochures address the audience’s course of study, the mission or the Refuge website. Environmental education of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the activities typically occur when school is in session, management purposes of the field station. Environ- concentrated in the spring and fall months, but our mental education integrates the station messages winter programming is growing. Most activities with the audience’s program such as integration occur during daylight hours. with school curriculum, with scout badge requirements or with Elder Hostel seminar requirements. Environmental education tends to be longer in dura-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 160 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

How is the use conducted? All environmental The Refuge has identified a need to build a facil- education and interpretation activities are con- ity for environmental education purposes. The facil- ducted with the Refuge's primary goals, objectives, ity can also be used by conservation organizations, and habitat management requirements as the guid- such as the North Country Trail Association, Izaak ing principles. Activities done under these restric- Walton League, or Boy Scouts for meeting space. tions allow the Refuge to accomplish its Currently, the typical school field trip is 120 stu- management goals and provide for the safety of visi- dents (two half-day trips with 60 each). The Refuge tors. All programs include a description of the U.S. Visitor Center does not have the capacity to accom- Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife modate a group of that size. Visiting schools do not Refuge System. All of the interpretive programs have alternative facilities during inclement weather address at least one of a number of wildlife conser- and must crowd into the visitor center. The CCP vation issues such as management, watershed, habi- recommends some strategies to improve the envi- tat, wildlife, endangered species, invasive species, ronmental education program and increase visitor etc. The environmental education programs not only use. A construction project of $500,000-plus has address Refuge management goals but integrate been identified in the CCP for this purpose. Addi- audience needs such as school curriculum require- tionally, the Refuge will seek to add a Park Ranger ments. (1.0 FTE) if visitation increases. The annual cost of this position is estimated at $80,000. Why is the use being proposed? Permitting this activity is consistent with the National Wildlife Ref- Anticipated Impacts of the Use: uge System Improvement Act, and helps accomplish Refuge goals and promotes understanding, appreci- Environmental education and interpretation are ation, and support for its mission. not expected to have measurable environmental impacts on the Refuge, its habitats, or wildlife. Dis- Availability of Resources: turbance to wildlife is limited to occasional incidents like flushing wildlife (e.g., deer and waterfowl). Approximately $250,000 is required to properly Restrictions on locations for environmental educa- administer this program. This includes a full time tion and interpretation and the numbers of users public use specialist, a visitor center manager/volun- will assure minimal disturbance to wildlife and other teer coordinator and seasonal Park Ranger. In addi- public use activities. tion, staff time is required for periodic maintenance and improvement of Refuge interpretive signs, The activities follow all applicable laws, regula- trails, observation platforms and visitor center dis- tions and policies, including: Migratory Bird Con- plays. servation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, National Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National Trained volunteers and interns provide an inte- Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and gral part of the Refuge’s environmental education the Refuge goals and objectives. These activities and interpretation program. They staff the Visitor comply with the purpose of the Refuge and the Center daily, host special events, lead or co-lead National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Operat- interpretive and environmental education pro- ing these activities does not alter the Refuge's abil- grams, and assist Refuge staff with a variety of ity to meet habitat goals and it helps support several other needs. Interns and volunteers are trained of the primary objectives of the Refuge. annually to conduct programs with minimal staff oversight. Public Review and Comment: Every effort is made to meet each request for This compatibility determination was part of the environmental education and interpretive pro- Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Compre- grams. However staff and funding shortages have hensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmen- curtailed programs and the number of requests tal Assessment. Public notification and review often exceeds our resources. Based on a review of includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- the current Refuge budget, there is enough funding eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media to administer this program, at its reduced level, and announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. ensure compatibility with the purpose for which the Comments received and agency responses will be Refuge was established. Strategies to improve the included in the final CCP. environmental education and interpretive program have been identified in the Comprehensive Conser- Determination: vation Plan (CCP). A seasonal Park Ranger (0.5 _____ Use is not compatible. FTE) may be added in the future if these strategies go forward. X Use is compatible with the following stipulations.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 161 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and the Refuge goals and objectives, environmental education and interpretation can only occur under the following stipulation: Environmental education and interpretation activities will only take place when and where they pose little or no threat to wildlife. The impacts of any activity that occurs outside of designated public use areas will be evaluated for its impacts on wildlife and for alternative locations. All activities will occur under the guidance of a Refuge staff member, volunteer or trained teacher to assure minimal disturbance to wildlife, minimal vegetation damage, and minimal user conflict between other public uses. Justification: Environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses for the National Wildlife Refuge System as outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. By facilitating these uses on the Refuge, we will increase visitor’s knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife, which will lead to increased public stewardship of fish and wildlife and their habitats on the Refuge and in general. Increased public stewardship will support and complement the Service's actions in achieving the Refuge purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Signature: Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  Sept. 7, 2010 Concurrence: Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 162 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Firewood Cutting (Non-commercial)/Timber acres depending on the site and management objec- Harvest (Commercial) tives. Timber harvest will be conducted on any portion of the Refuge other than the Wilderness Area, Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Research Natural Areas, and the Old Growth Area (Refuge) (bounded by the Blackbird Auto tour Loop). Fire- Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive wood cutting will generally occur along trails, roads, Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Con- and firebreaks and wherever there is a need to servation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting remove hazard trees. Stamp Act. When is the use conducted? Depending on the Refuge Purpose(s): goals and objectives of the timber harvest, activities could occur during any season. For instance, if the Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was estab- objective is to promote red and white pine regenera- lished in 1938… tion, scarification of the soil is required and this is best done during the growing season. On the other  “... as a refuge and breeding ground for hand, lowland conifer sites have soils that are prone migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” to rutting. Management activities in this forest type Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938 should only occur during the winter when the  “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any ground is frozen. In the end, management activities other management purpose, for migratory should occur when they meet silvicultural objec- birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird tives, would not adversely impact other ecosystem Conservation Act) processes (e.g., water and soil quality, etc.), and  “... conservation, management, and restoration would facilitate access and afford protection to of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and underlying cultural resources, soils and vegetation. their habitats for the benefit of present and Most often, wood removal activities for the pur- future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. poses of firewood, occurs October through March 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System when there is a personal need and when the ground Administration Act) is frozen and access is easy. National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conser- How is the use conducted? Firewood cutters are vation, management, and where appropriate, resto- issued a Special Use Permit on a “first come, first ration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their serve” basis. Commercial harvesting is awarded habitats within the United States for the benefit of through a bidding process. Both processes are over- present and future generations of Americans. seen by the Refuge Manager and his/her designee, usually the Refuge Forester or Refuge Biologist. Description of Use: The number of people participating in either activity What is the use? The Refuge will allow the cut- varies from year to year depending on need, the ting and removal of trees (firewood cutting/tree har- funding constraints, and to some extent for commer- vest) from the Refuge by third parties for the cial operations, the market interest. The number of purpose of improving forest diversity and health for permittees typically varies from zero to ten. The wildlife benefits through thinning, creating open- areas open to tree harvest and management strate- ings, removal of invasive tree species, road/trail gies are specified in the Refuge Forest Management maintenance and public safety. This covers all wood Plan (initial plan dates from 1955). Firewood cutting removal activities regardless of the ultimate use of permits will be handled on a case-by-case basis. the wood (e.g., firewood, pulp, etc.). Harvest may Equipment used for harvest may range from include standing and fallen trees for personal-use chainsaws and axes, to traditional logging equip- firewood, and commercial timber harvest. ment such as feller-bunchers and log skidders. Where is the use conducted? The scope of the Access may be by horse teams, car and trailer, pick- activity will be determined by the management up truck, farm tractor, or larger traditional logging objective for the area and by the quantity and qual- equipment including semi tractor-trailer combina- ity of available wood. Harvest sites will vary in size from a portion of an acre up to several hundred

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 163 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

tions. Differences in scope and necessary equipment Indirect impacts to wildlife and Refuge goals will will occur depending on the amount and type of occur as a result of removing woody vegetation. In wood available for removal. nearly every instance, these impacts will be positive. The removal of woody vegetation facilitates native Why is the use being proposed? The management habitat restoration efforts on the Refuge and of Refuge forests using commercial and non-com- improves habitat for grouse, deer, gray wolves, mercial mechanical means and other methods is eagles, and neotropical birds. In some cases, the administered in accordance with wildlife and ecosys- removal of trees along roads, trails, and dikes is nec- tem management principles and ongoing research essary because of the hazard to users from dead and land management demonstrations. This activity trees, blow down or ice damage. will only occur where the Service has determined that a management need exists to remove wood. Potential site disturbances could include Wood removal may be done following storm events decreased aesthetics, soil erosion/compaction, water and where trees are encroaching on hiking trails, temperature change along wooded streams, fire breaks and/or roads, open marshes, grassland destruction of ground cover, creation of weed seed areas, jack pine savanna restoration areas, or beds, introduction of invasive species, and increased degrading earthen water impoundment structures. sedimentation due to runoff in nearby wetlands. Wood cutting is not a priority public use, as defined These impacts can be minimized by leaving buffer by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improve- strips near streams, wetlands and roadways, and by ment Act of 1997, but rather serves as a manage- timing of the activity and requiring equipment be ment instrument for ensuring Refuge priority cleaned prior to entering the Refuge. As much as habitat goals are being addressed. possible, existing roads or trails will be utilized to limit the amount of clearing required to access the Availability of Resources: desired location. Planning, issuing permits, and monitoring a wood The no-action prescription for the Wilderness product harvest program would require a commit- Area, Research Natural Areas, and Old Growth ment of staff hours. Periodic and small-scale harvest Area promote habitat sites for cavity nesters and operations can be adequately administered with forest interior wildlife. Minimal site disturbance existing staff resources. Based on past activity, we results from this prescription since equipment for estimate that administering a small timber harvest wildfire suppression is the only heavy equipment program will require from $1,000 to $2,000 in staff that would be used on these sites. salary costs. Large-scale operations affecting many acres will require additional time for planning and Public Review and Comment: permit administration and oversight required (bid process, bonding, permittee selection, inspection of This compatibility determination was part of the field work, etc.) All harvest sites are marked with Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Compre- flagging tape or paint by Refuge staff. By permit- hensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmen- ting a wood products harvest, the manager has iden- tal Assessment. Public notification and review tified a management need and will have secured and includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- prioritized the necessary station resources. In the eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media past, the Refuge has issued approximately 5 to 10 announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. permits annually for this activity, charging a $10 Comments received and agency responses will be permit fee. Any permit fees or timber sale receipts included in the final CCP. will not off-set costs since these funds are deposited Determination: in general accounts and not returned to the Refuge. The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan identi- _____ Use is not compatible. fies the long-term need for 1 FTE Forester. X Use is compatible with the following stipu- Anticipated Impacts of the Use: lations. In permitting this type of activity, the potential Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: exists to directly impact wildlife by displacement of To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife animals from localized areas due to disturbance, or Refuge System and the Refuge goals and objectives, crushing of ground nests as a result of access for firewood cutting/timber harvest can only occur this activity. These impacts are easily avoided by under the following stipulations: timing of the activity in accordance with site specific characteristics.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 164 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

1. Each timber harvest requires compliance protection to desirable conifer plantings. Any direct with a Special Use Permit (SUP). The SUP impacts on wildlife production (take, disturbance, stipulates the applicable requirements for the etc.) can be largely avoided by timing the activity so Forest Management Plan. that it does not coincide with the breeding/production season. 2. An SUP will be issued to minimize or eliminate site specific impacts, to meet specific Impacts to the habitat as a result of access for habitat and related wildlife objectives and to wood removal purposes are potentially significant, contribute to the purposes of the Refuge. but also easily avoided. Ground disturbance in some areas may actually be desirable due to an improved 3. All timber harvesting is monitored by the seedbed that may result. Access to and from these Refuge Forester or equivalent Refuge Spe- areas will need to be carefully controlled (via special cialist for compliance to the SUP. use permit) to avoid impacts such as rutting and 4. No cutting operations will be permitted from increased sedimentation in area wetlands due to April 1 through July 15 if nesting birds are run-off. If existing roads are not present, access can known to use the site. be restricted to periods of frozen ground to avoid or minimize impacts to underlying cultural resources, 5. Standing cavity trees which are actively being vegetation and soils. used by wildlife will be marked and protected. Other indirect impacts are generally considered 6. Vehicle access for wood removal will be lim- positive and thus do not materially interfere with or ited to existing trails or restricted to the fro- detract from the purpose of the Refuge or the zen ground period when rutting and damage National Wildlife Refuge System missions. The to growing vegetation would occur. removal of trees at strategic locations will benefit habitat restoration. Individuals participating in the 7. Commercial equipment must be cleaned prior wood harvest program will be under special use per- to entering the Refuge. mits with site specific stipulations to ensure Justification: resource protection and achievement of management goals. Control of woody species encroachment In accordance with the missions of the National on wetland and grassland habitats is a necessary Wildlife Refuge System and the Refuge, the management activity and directly supports the mis- National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act sion of the National Wildlife Refuge System. of 1997, and the Biological Integrity Policy, this use has been determined compatible provided the above Signature: stipulations are implemented. This use allows for Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  the conservation, management, and restoration of Sept. 7, 2010 the wildlife and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Concurrence: Americans by promoting ecological integrity and historic forest conditions that are now poorly repre- Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 sented. Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020 The diverse forest community that existed prior to Refuge establishment has been adversely altered by forest clearing and settlement. The current forest is even aged, growing old, and in many cases not regenerating itself. Prescribed forest management practices, including harvest, are important elements of reversing this trend. Using third parties to accomplish harvest is efficient, and is one of a number of potential tools to conserve, restore, or rehabilitate forest stands. Harvest will only be done to meet specific forest health and wildlife objectives as outlined in the Forest Management Plan. The removal of dead trees reduces fuel buildup and the severity of potential wildfires. Openings created by woodcutting allow light to penetrate and stimulate the understory growth which increases browse production, woodland diversity and offers

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 165 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Sport Fishing Day. Pine Lake is open to fishing from December 1 to March 31. Bank fishing on the Ottertail River is Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge open year-round. (Refuge) How is the use conducted? Fishing is conducted Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive in accordance with the state and Refuge-specific Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Con- federal regulations. For that portion of the Refuge servation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting within the White Earth Reservation, tribal regula- Stamp Act. tions as outlined in the White Earth Conservation Refuge Purpose(s): Code apply. Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was estab- Why is the use being proposed? Recreational lished in 1938… fishing is a priority public use identified in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997  “... as a refuge and breeding ground for and has traditionally occurred at the Refuge without migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” adverse impacts to the purpose for which the Ref- Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938 uge was established. The fishing program is admin-  “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any istered to provide recreational opportunities to other management purpose, for migratory visitors while avoiding negative impacts to wildlife birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird and their habitat. The activity will promote local Conservation Act) tourism and economic trade and enhance Service initiatives in the surrounding local communities.  “... conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and The Refuge was officially opened to sport fishing their habitats for the benefit of present and in 1938 and is conducted in accordance with the Ref- future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. uge Fisheries Management Plan dated November 2, 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System 1987, and amendment dated December 6, 1991. Administration Act) Availability of Resources: National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conser- The cost of administering this program is approx- vation, management, and where appropriate, resto- imately $20,000 annually. Seventy percent of this ration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their cost is for staff salary, primarily law enforcement habitats within the United States for the benefit of patrols to insure compliance with regulations. Ref- present and future generations of Americans. uge law enforcement staff often times must adjust their work schedule to weekend details and holidays Description of Use: for complete Refuge patrol coverage. The remaining What is the use? Sport fishing as an activity con- expense is incurred by providing and maintaining ducted by the general public under regulation brochures, signs, facilities parking lot/portions of authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System road maintenance, including snow removal and lake Improvement. landing ramps. Based on a review of the current Refuge budget, there is enough funding to ensure Where is the use conducted? The Refuge allows administration of this program is compatible with fishing on North Tamarac, Wauboose, Two Island the purpose for which the Refuge was established. Lakes, Lost, Blackbird and Pine Lakes. Bank fish- The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan identi- ing on the Ottertail River is permitted 50 yards on fies the long-term need for a FTE Law Enforce- either side of the Ottertail River bridges on County ment Officer. Roads 26 and 126. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: When is the use conducted? Fishing on North Tamarac, Wauboose and Two Island Lakes is open Sport fishing has not caused any adverse impacts year-round. Blackbird and Lost lakes are open from to the Refuge, its habitats, visitors or wildlife. Moni- the spring opening day of the Minnesota state wall- toring of fish populations, dissolved oxygen sam- eye/northern pike season (mid-May) through Labor pling, winter fish rescue, and walleye fingerling production are activities the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has conducted on the Refuge

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 166 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

lakes for many years, in some cases dating back to Determination: 1923. Fish surveys have demonstrated no adverse impact to fish populations due to recreational fish- _____ Use is not compatible. ing. Lakes experiencing fish losses due to reduced X Use is compatible with the following stipu- dissolved oxygen levels from severe winters are lations. replenished by moderate stocking of native species. Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To Concerns over impacts to non-target wildlife ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge through excessive disturbance are minimized System and Refuge goals and objectives the activity through controlled access and seasonal restrictions. can only occur under the following stipulations: Abundant submergent and emergent vegetation along lake shorelines limit fishing activity in these 1. Control access to fishing waters and seasonal areas. Sufficient escape cover for flightless water- restrictions. fowl and broods is available should they be disturbed by fishing activities. Boat landings are single 2. Monitor fish populations to ensure an adequate and diverse fishery. ramped, shallow, or primitive which deters large boat/motor use. Disturbance to sensitive wild rice 3. State and/or tribal fishing requirements apply beds is minimized by not allowing boat fishing on on the Refuge. the Ottertail River. No motorized access is permitted for ice fishing which minimizes potential stress 4. The following Refuge-specific regulations and to winter wildlife residents. Use of lead tackle is an restrictions apply: impact, but to what degree, is largely unknown. 5. Fishing is restricted to those areas desig- Education and mandatory use of non-toxic tackle nated. will likely be phased in. In the short-term, the Ref- uge will focus on the use of alternative tackle. 6. Bank fishing only along designated roadways. While no impacts have been observed to date, 7. Fishing hours are 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. there is potential for infestation of aquatic invasive species transported by boats, live wells, and trailers. 8. Vehicles are permitted only on designated State regulations mandating boats, trailers, roads and trails where gates are open. Motor- anchors, and live wells are free of invasive species, ized vehicle use on the ice, including snowmo- informational signs posted at all landings, and edu- biles and ATVs, is prohibited. cational efforts will minimize this impact. 9. No personal possessions may be left over- Other concerns, such as litter and fishing line night on the Refuge, including ice shelters entanglement are addressed through public educa- and fish traps. tion and regular patrols. 10. Annually review all fishing activities and The fishing program follows all applicable laws, operations to ensure compliance with all regulations and policies; including: 50 CFR, applicable laws, regulations and policies. National Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National Justification: Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and the Refuge goals and objectives. This activity is also This use has been determined compatible pro- compliant with the purpose of the Refuge and the vided the above stipulations are implemented. This National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Conduct- use is being permitted as it is a priority public use ing this program does not alter the Refuge’s ability and will not diminish the primary purposes of the to meet habitat goals, provide for public safety and Refuge. This use will meet the mission of the support several primary objectives of the Refuge. National Wildlife Refuge System by providing renewable resources for the benefit of the American Public Review and Comment: public while conserving fish, wildlife and plant This compatibility determination was part of the resources on these lands. Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Compre- State fishing regulations allow the traditional hensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmen- taking of game fish species with rod and reel from tal Assessment. Public notification and review shore or boat, through the ice, and by using trotlines includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- and jugs. Removal of rough fish by spear, archery eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media and dip net is allowed, as well as the taking of lim- announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. ited quantities of crayfish, frogs, minnows, leeches Comments received and agency responses will be and turtles for personal use. Currently, the taking included in the final CCP. of crayfish, frogs, minnow and turtles is minimal.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 167 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Should this activity grow, the Refuge may need to monitor the use for impacts to fish, wildlife and habitats. Signature: Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  Sept. 7, 2010 Concurrence: Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 168 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Hunting a number of factors, such as weather conditions and animal population cycles. Most hunting for Ameri- Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge can woodcock is incidental to grouse hunting. (Refuge) Where is the use conducted? The entire Refuge is Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive open to small game, furbearer and deer only hunt- Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Con- ing except, roughly 1,800 acres, which surrounds the servation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting Refuge buildings and public use facilities are closed Stamp Act. to hunting. Migratory bird hunting is restricted to Refuge Purpose(s): two zones – the visitor use area south of County Road 26 except for approximately 1,100 acres sur- Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was estab- rounding Blackbird and South Chippewa Lakes and lished in 1938: the area north of County Road 143 up to the northern shorelines of Big Egg, Lower Egg, Wauboose  “... as a refuge and breeding ground for and Dry Lakes, including Two Island and Carmen migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” Lakes. Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938  “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any When is the use conducted? The hunting season other management purpose, for migratory traditionally begins in mid-September on the Ref- birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird uge. All hunting activities are in accordance with Conservation Act) state of Minnesota and White Earth Reservation seasons. Some of the more popular species and sea-  “... conservation, management, and restoration sons hunted include the following: Small game – of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and (R their habitats for the benefit of present and uffed Grouse) mid-September to early January, (squirrels and rabbits) mid-September through future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System February; furbearer (fox, raccoon and skunk) tradi- Administration Act) tionally the last week of October through February. An annual youth waterfowl hunt occurs in Septem- National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a ber, prior to the general waterfowl season. Water- national network of lands and waters for the conser- fowl season typically begins on the Saturday closest vation, management, and where appropriate, resto- to October 1. The Canada Goose hunting has early, ration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their regular and late seasons, beginning as early as Sep- habitats within the United States for the benefit of tember 1 and ending as late as mid-December. present and future generations of Americans. The Refuge deer hunting seasons are defined by Description of Use: method of take and are set by the Minnesota What is the use? Hunting of game as an activity Department of Natural Resources (DNR) with reg- conducted by the general public under regulation ular firearms as a 9-day season in mid-November; authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System archery typically beginning mid-September through Improvement Act. Hunting is currently allowed for December and muzzle-loader hunting occurring small game (Ruffed Grouse, gray, red and fox squir- after the firearm season, late November to mid- rel, snowshoe hare and cottontail rabbit), furbearer December. (red fox, raccoon and striped skunk), big game To increase wildlife observation opportunities (white-tailed deer), and migratory bird (ducks, during the hunting season or to minimize conflict geese, American woodcock, coot and common snipe) between user groups, a portion of the visitor use on the Refuge. area south of County Road 26 and bounded by the Hunting is a traditional activity on the Refuge auto-tour route is delayed for hunting until October and continues to be very popular. The Refuge expe- 15. The Blackbird Auto Tour and Old Indian Hiking riences roughly 8,000 visitors per year with white Trail are popular for wildlife photographers and tail deer hunting remaining the favorite activity. nature enthusiasts who want to experience the spec- Actual hunters may vary year to year depending on tacular fall colors of the area.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 169 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Tribal hunting seasons generally open two weeks The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan identi- prior to state seasons and may extend beyond the fies the long-term need for 1 FTE Law Enforce- state seasons. ment Officer. How is the use conducted? To ensure a quality Anticipated Impacts of the Use: hunt and visitor and staff safety, all hunting activities are in accordance with federal, state, and White This activity has shown no assessable environ- Earth Reservation, subject to Refuge-specific regu- mental impact to the Refuge, its habitats or wildlife lations. Tribal regulations apply only to that portion species, but the activity is monitored closely for any of the Refuge within the White Earth Reservation. signs of change. Hunting does cause mortality and Hunting activities are intended to meet the National disturbance to those species hunted, but bag limits, Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and some season dates, and other regulations are set to pro- of the Refuge objectives and management goals tect the long-term health of populations. Repeated without adversely affecting the primary objectives use of an area by boats equipped with “go-devils” and mission of the Refuge. Completing this activity can damage emergent and submergent vegetation under a hunting plan allows the Refuge to accom- beds. Concerns primarily center on the possibility of plish its management goals and provide needed impacting sensitive non-target species through safety levels for citizens of the area without excessive disturbance. Visitor safety and law adversely affecting Refuge habitats and wildlife enforcement issues are also important. Providing populations. Hunting activities can only occur in restrictions that limit access to specific Refuge loca- designated areas listed in the Hunt Management tions will minimize disturbance and unsafe vehicle Plan. A Refuge Hunting Regulations brochure is access. Disturbance to wildlife is limited to occa- available to inform the public of hunting opportuni- sional flushing of non-target species during the open ties and Refuge regulations. State regulations are hunting season. Nearly all migratory waterfowl published in the Minnesota Hunting and Trapping have left the Refuge prior to the mid-November Regulations Handbook. White Earth Reservation deer hunt. Law enforcement patrols are conducted regulations can be found in their Conservation Code regularly to ensure compliance with regulations. Handbooks. The hunting program follows all applicable laws, regulations and policies including: 50 CFR, National Support facilities that are available for hunting Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National Wildlife include boat ramps, mowed secondary roads/trails Refuge System goals and objectives, and Tamarac for non-motorized access, and parking areas. Per- NWR goals and objectives. This activity is also com- sons with disabilities may be granted special per- pliant with the purpose of the Refuge and the mits or exceptions to some hunting regulations. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Conduct- ing this program does not alter the Refuge’s ability Why is the use being proposed? Hunting is a pri- to meet habitat goals, provide for public safety and ority public use identified in the National Wildlife support several primary objectives of the Refuge. Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and it has traditionally occurred at the Refuge without adverse Public Review and Comment: impacts to the purpose for which the Refuge was established. The hunt program is administered in This compatibility determination was part of the accordance with sound wildlife management princi- Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Compre- ples and the utmost concern for public safety. hensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmen- tal Assessment. Public notification and review Availability of Resources: includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media Approximately $30,000 is required annually to announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. administer the hunting program. Staff support of Comments received and agency responses will be this program cost $20,000. Refuge staff must adjust included in the final CCP. their work schedules to accommodate hunters early and late each day and on weekends. Additionally, Determination: law enforcement officers patrol to ensure compliance with hunting regulations. Overhead expenses _____ Use is not compatible. including signs, leaflets, parking lot/portions of road X Use is compatible with the following stipu- maintenance (snow removal), trail mowing and lations. equipment is estimated at $10,000. Based on a review of the current Refuge budget, additional funding of $21,500 will be required to ensure compatibility and to administer and manage the hunts.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 170 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: renewable resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish, wildlife and plant To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife resources on these lands. Refuge System and the Refuge goals and objectives the activity can only occur under the following stipu- Without a hunting program specifically used as a lations: management tool, the Refuge deer population may adversely affect plant communities, and hence alter 1. This use must be conducted in accordance ecological diversity and succession. This may result with state, tribal and federal regulations, and in significant negative impacts on both plant and special Refuge regulations published in the other animal communities including some of special Refuge Hunting Regulations and Public Use concern or of Service trust responsibility. This Regulations brochures. impact has been well documented and accepted 2. Hunting hours are determined by state regu- through research over a period of many years. The lations except as restricted by Refuge specific white-tailed deer hunting plan objectives will ulti- regulations. mately result in a deer density of 13 to 18 deer / mi2. This deer density will maintain the Refuge deer 3. Deer harvested must be registered at Minne- population at the upper limit of a reasonable equilib- sota DNR check stations in accordance with rium with its environment as estimated for the Lau- state regulations. rentian Mixed Forest region. 4. The following Refuge-specific regulations and Migratory bird hunting seasons and bag limits restrictions apply: are established by the states within a framework set nationally by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 5. Hunting hours are restricted to 5 a.m. to 10 These restrictions ensure the continued well-being p.m. daily. of overall populations of migratory birds. Hunting 6. Use of dogs to hunt furbearers is prohibited. does result in the taking of many individuals within the overall population, but restrictions are designed 7. Snowmobiles and ATV’s are prohibited on to safeguard an adequate breeding population from Refuge roads and trails. year to year. The system of Waterfowl Hunting Closed Areas on the Refuge provides feeding and 8. Shotgun hunters may only use or possess non- resting areas for migratory birds during the hunt- toxic shot while hunting migratory birds and ing season. Specific Refuge regulations address small game. equity and quality of opportunity for hunters. 9. Parking, blocking, or in any manner restrict- Signature: ing access to roads and gates is prohibited. Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  10. All personal property must be removed at the Sept. 7, 2010 end of each hunt day. Concurrence: 11. Continue annual deer surveys and use of deer population modeling by Minnesota DNR to Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 ensure population estimates are within target levels. Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020 12. Annually evaluate/monitor hunting methods to ensure safety. 13. Annually review all hunting activities and operations to ensure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and policies. Justification: This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. This use is being permitted as it is a priority public use and will not diminish the primary purposes of the Refuge. This use will meet the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System by providing

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 171 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography Refuge offers a 5-mile auto-tour drive, a 2.25-mile (including means of access) hiking trail, a short interpretive trail, 8 miles of groomed ski trails and two observation platforms Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge with accessible spotting scopes. Non-motorized (Refuge) boating is allowed in Blackbird Lake. Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive When is the use conducted? The uses typically Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Con- occur during the daylight hours throughout the servation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting year. The Refuge is open 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. The Ref- Stamp Act. uge’s Visitor Center is open year-round Monday Refuge Purpose(s): through Sunday from May 15 to October 15 and Monday through Friday the rest of the year. The Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was estab- Sanctuary Area includes lands and trails north of lished in 1938: County Road 26. This area is closed to the public from March 1 through August 31 to give wildlife a  “... as a refuge and breeding ground for sanctuary during the breeding season. The Visitor migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” Use Area south of County Road 26 is available for Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938 public use year-round.  “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory How is the use conducted? All wildlife observa- birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird tion and photography activities will be conducted Conservation Act) with the Refuge's goals, objectives and management plans as the guiding principles. Activities done  “... conservation, management, and restoration under these restrictions allow the Refuge to accom- of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and plish its management goals and provide for the their habitats for the benefit of present and safety of future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. visitors. Entry on all or portions of individ- 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System ual areas may be temporarily suspended due to unusual or critical conditions affecting land, water, Administration Act) vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety. National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a County and township roads do not have access national network of lands and waters for the conser- restrictions. vation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their Why is the use being proposed? Wildlife observa- habitats within the United States for the benefit of tion and photography are priority public uses on present and future generations of Americans. National Wildlife Refuge System lands as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of Description of Use: 1997. Allowing access to the Refuge for wildlife What is the use? General public access to observe observation and photography is consistent with and/or photograph wildlife and Refuge habitats goals of the Refuge and the National Wildlife Ref- including the means of access such as automobile, uge System. hiking, bicycling, canoeing, kayaking, snowshoeing Availability of Resources: and cross-country skiing. Under the National Wild- life Refuge Improvement Act, of 1997, wildlife Approximately $50,000 is required to maintain observation and photography are priority public the Refuge roads, trails and facilities used by the uses. public engaged in wildlife observation and photography. Currently, with the assistance of the volunteers Where is the use conducted? These activities and the Tamarac Interpretive Association, there is could take place anywhere on the Refuge but most enough staff and funding available to administer often occur in the vicinity of roads and visitor use these activities. facilities. Within and around the Refuge there are approximately 50 miles of county and township Anticipated Impacts of the Use: roadways. Additionally, the Refuge contains nearly 50 miles of service roads and trails that are open to Wildlife observation and photography cause minor disturbance to wildlife. Wildlife quickly hiking, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing. The become accustomed to vehicles along the wildlife

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 172 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

drive and non-motorized access is typically along 2. Motorized vehicles are restricted to desig- established trails or roads. There is temporary dis- nated roadways. turbance to wildlife due to human activity on the land. The most likely impact to the Refuge purposes 3. All Terrain Vehicles and snowmobiles are would be during the spring and early summer nest- prohibited. ing and brood rearing, and during spring and fall 4. Camping, overnight use, and fires are prohib- migration. The Refuge has minimized this impact by ited. providing a Sanctuary Area for wildlife during the critical use period. Winter activities pose no impacts 5. No photo or viewing blinds may be left over to nesting waterfowl and little impact to vegetation. night. The winter disturbance to resident wildlife is tempo- 6. Harassment of wildlife or excessive damage rary and minor. Overall, the disturbance is limited to vegetation is prohibited. to a small portion of the entire Refuge. Blackbird Lake is designated non-motorized since it is along 7. Horseback riding and bicycling are restricted our auto-tour route which was developed for the to the Blackbird Auto Tour Route, Bruce purpose of wildlife observation. Abundant submer- Boulevard, and county and township roads. gent and emergent vegetation along lake shorelines will limit boating activity in these areas. Sufficient Justification: escape cover for flightless waterfowl and broods is This use has been determined compatible pro- available should they be disturbed by canoeing/kay- vided the above stipulations are implemented. It aking activities. promotes public stewardship of natural resources Wildlife observation and photography are prior- and helps the Refuge meet its goals and objectives. ity public uses listed in the National Wildlife Refuge It does not materially interfere with or detract from System Improvement Act. By facilitating these uses the Service’s ability to meet the mission of the on the Refuge, we will increase visitors' knowledge National Wildlife Refuge System. and appreciation of fish and wildlife, which will lead The activities follow all applicable laws, regula- to increased public stewardship of fish and wildlife tions and policies; including Migratory Bird Conser- and their habitats on the Refuge and in general. vation Act, Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Increased public stewardship will support and com- National Wildlife Refuge System Manual, National plement the Service's actions in achieving the Ref- Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and uge's purposes and the mission of the National Refuge goals and objectives. These activities are Wildlife Refuge System. compliant with the purpose of the Refuge and the Public Review and Comment: National Wildlife Refuge System Mission. Operat- ing this activity does not alter the Refuge's ability to This compatibility determination was part of the meet habitat goals and it helps support several of Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Compre- the primary objectives of the Refuge. hensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmen- tal Assessment. Public notification and review Signature: includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media Sept. 7, 2010 announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be Concurrence: included in the final CCP. Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 Determination: Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020 _____ Use is not compatible. X Use is compatible with the following stipulations. Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and the Refuge goals and objectives, wildlife observation and photography can only occur under the following stipulations: 1. The Refuge is open from 5 a.m. to 10 p. m.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 173 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Research activities. A formal application and project proposal is not required in the case of contractors hired Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge directly by the Service. Research will be carried out (Refuge) by professors, students, contractors, and Refuge Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive staff and volunteers. Researchers will be required to Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Con- provide written reports and make their data avail- servation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting able to Refuge staff. Research results will be used to Stamp Act. assist Refuge staff in making wise management decisions and to support adaptive management pro- Refuge Purpose(s): cesses. Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was estab- Where is the use conducted? Research activities lished in 1938: will occur throughout the Tamarac NWRs 42,738 acres, occasionally on adjoining state lands (Hubbel  “... as a refuge and breeding ground for Pond Wildlife Management Area) or on adjoining migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” White Earth Band of the Chippewa Reservation Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938 under cooperative agreements with the White  “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any Earth Reservation Natural Resources Department. other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird When is the use conducted? Research may be Conservation Act) conducted year-round but usually occur from April to November.  “... conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and How is the use conducted? Research activities their habitats for the benefit of present and are managed through the Special Use Permit pro- future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. cess and overseen by the Refuge Manager and his/ 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System her designee, usually the Refuge Biologist. All Administration Act) research activities will be conducted with the Ref- National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a uge's primary goals, objectives, and habitat manage- national network of lands and waters for the conser- ment requirements as the guiding principles. vation, management, and where appropriate, resto- Research may be conducted by foot, vehicle, canoe, ration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their kayak, boat, airboat, and aerial methods. Marking of habitats within the United States for the benefit of nests and individual animals may be required. present and future generations of Americans. Every effort will be made to minimize the impacts of research activities on wildlife and their habitats and Description of Use: avoid conflicts with public use and management What is the use? The use is research projects activities. A Special Use Permit will be issued for conducted by Universities and other academic insti- each research project that specifies what, when, tutions; government agencies such as the Minnesota where, and how research may occur on the Refuge. Department of Natural Resources; Tribal Depart- Why is the use being proposed? Research and ment of Natural Resources; U. S. Geological Survey monitoring information is critical to making sound (USGS); consultants hired by the Service; private biological decisions in the restoration and manage- conservation organizations such as The Nature Con- ment of ecosystems/landscapes for fish and wildlife servancy; and others. Research projects will focus communities occurring on national wildlife Refuges. on better understanding of Refuge wildlife and hab- It is needed to measure the successes and failures of itat resources, provide information to improve adap- management efforts. This is an important use with tive management decisions, and increase life history long-term benefits that ensures we have the best information on species of concern. information possible upon which to base manage- A Refuge research application, accompanied by a ment decisions. written project proposal, is required for review and approval before access will be allowed. If approved, access to Refuge lands and waters will be limited to the least invasive means required to accomplish the

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 174 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Availability of Resources: 1. Researchers will submit a study proposal and designate a specific area(s) on the Refuge Much of the research and monitoring is funded where activity is to occur. by grants, other government agencies, universities, or conducted by students and volunteers. Refuge 2. Each research proposal is evaluated to ensure staff involvement includes reviewing research pro- the project(s) gives us a better understanding posals, supervising or monitoring research activi- of Refuge wildlife and habitat resources, pro- ties, reviewing reports, providing some equipment vide information to improve adaptive manage- and vehicles, and occasionally participating in field ment decisions, and increase life history work. Staff time is required for development and/or information on species of concern. review of research proposals/reports, administration of Special Use Permits, supervision of students 3. Each research proposal is evaluated to ensure and volunteers, coordination with researchers, the least invasive techniques are used. maintenance of vehicles, specialized equipment and 4. Researchers must follow their study proposal facilities (bunkhouse). Based on a review of the cur- and comply with the provisions of their Spe- rent Refuge budget, there is enough funding to cial Use Permit. ensure administration of this program is compatible with the purpose for which Tamarac NWR was 5. Researchers must coordinate their activities established. with the biological staff and management staff. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 6. A report must be submitted at the end of each Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by field season and at the conclusion of the study. researchers could occur through vegetation sampling, capture and handling of wildlife, observation 7. Researchers must make any data collected activities, banding, and accessing the study area. It while at the Refuge available for Refuge use. is possible that direct or indirect mortality could result as a byproduct of research activities. How- 8. Refuge research activities are evaluated ever, the overall impact of allowing well designed annually to ensure that their collective impacts do not compromise the goals or objec- and properly reviewed research to be conducted by tives of the Refuge and to ensure compliance non-Service personnel is likely to have very little with all appli impact on Refuge wildlife populations. If the cable laws, regulations and policies. research project is conducted with professionalism and integrity, potential adverse impacts are likely to Justification: be outweighed by the knowledge gained about an entire species, habitat or public use. This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. Public Review and Comment: Research and monitoring information is critical to making sound biological decisions in the restoration This compatibility determination was part of the and management of ecosystems/landscapes for fish Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Compre- and wildlife communities occurring on national wild- hensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmen- life refuges. It is needed to measure the successes tal Assessment. Public notification and review an includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- d failures of management efforts. This is an important use with long-term benefits that ensure eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media we have the best information possible upon which to announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. base management decisions. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final CCP. Signature: Determination: Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  Sept. 7, 2010 _____ Use is not compatible. Concurrence: X Use is compatible with the following stipulations. Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020 To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife Refuge System and the Refuge goals and objectives the activity can only occur under the following stipulations:

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 175 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Trapping of Furbearers and then was closed again in 1946. During 1947- 1968, some trapping was done each year. At least Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge through the mid-1960’s, trapping was considered an (Refuge) economic activity for the Refuge. Between 1969 and Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: Executive 1975, the permits were awarded by lottery. Begin- Order 7902 on May 31, 1938, Migratory Bird Con- ning in 1976, only enrolled members of the White servation Act and the Migratory Bird Hunting Earth Band, Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota were Stamp Act. able to obtain permits. Refuge Purpose(s): The matter of public demand for and opinion of trapping on the Refuge was resolved in the early Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge was estab- 1980s when several court decisions were finalized. lished in 1938: The ruling made it clear that the White Earth Band had sovereign rights to harvest fish and wildlife  “... as a refuge and breeding ground for within the reservation boundary pursuant to the migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” Treaty of 1867. While the Fish and Wildlife Service Executive Order 7902, dated May 31, 1938 controls access to Refuge lands, those sovereign  “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any rights are defended and prohibition of trapping on other management purpose, for migratory the reservation portion of the Refuge is a manage- birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird ment alternative available only to the White Earth Conservation Act) Reservation Tribal Council.  “... conservation, management, and restoration The southern, non-reservation portion of the Ref- of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and uge is affected by the Collier Agreement of 1935. their habitats for the benefit of present and That document specifies that furbearer trapping is a future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System priority privilege of the White Earth Band on the Administration Act) entire Refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service can restrict trapping off the reservation for biological or National Wildlife System Mission: to administer a public safety reasons. The letter of the Collier national network of lands and waters for the conser- Agreement does not grant exclusive rights or privi- vation, management, and where appropriate, resto- leges. ration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of Where is the use conducted? The Refuge is present and future generations of Americans. divided into seven trapping zones. Special use permits for trapping mink, muskrat and raccoon are Description of Use: issued through a bid system. Trappers for nuisance What is the use? The Refuge allows trapping of beaver are selected by the Refuge Manager. The resident furbearers as a priority activity of the number of individuals that participate in the trap- White Earth Band, Chippewa Tribe of Minnesota ping program varies each year but is usually less and by the public in accordance with state, tribal, than ten individuals. and Refuge-specific regulations. This compatibility How is the use conducted? The Trapping Plan determination does not apply to trapping activities dated September 18, 1990, amended September 5, where the Service awards a contract or permit for 1991, provides guidance for issuing permits. The the removal of animals to facilitate management Refuge is divided into seven trapping zones. Annu- (i.e., predator control of ground-nesting birds or ally, one permit is issued for each zone. The desig- protection for water control structures and road- nated permittees are authorized to take beaver, ways from flooding or dam blow-out). Trapping is mink, muskrat, raccoon, fox, coyote, and badger not a priority public use, as defined by the National exclusively and only in that zone. The Trapping Plan Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. was amended in 1994 to permit the take of otter. Trapping and furbearer management activities Permits are issued following a random drawing have evolved since Refuge establishment. During conducted by the Refuge and White Earth Biologi- 1938-1944, no trapping was permitted on the fee cal Department (WEBD) personnel at an agreed title Refuge land. The first season was held in 1945, upon location. Drawing dates are determined annu-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 176 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

ally by mutual agreement of Refuge personnel and production are negligible due to the temporal sepa- WEBD personnel. Only enrolled tribal members are ration of trapping and nesting activity. Beaver trap- eligible to apply. Non-tribal members may be pers using the Refuge after early March, offered trapping opportunities if the alternate list of undoubtedly disturb individuals on occasion, and tribal applicants is exhausted. Also, if the Refuge cause temporary displacement of waterfowl from Manager determines that the tribal permittee in a specific and limited areas. These impacts would be zone is ineffective and there is a biological or dam- occasional, temporary, and isolated to small geo- age control need to harvest a furbearer species, a graphic areas. Any habitat change as a result of the non-tribal member may be selected to trap. physical impacts of trapping activity (trampling, etc.) is undetectable and insignificant. On those portions of the Refuge lying within the reservation boundary (all of zones 1 and 2, and por- Although seasons open in September and extend tions of zones 3, 4, and 5), permittees are governed into late spring, few permittees actually begin trap- by seasons, bag limits, methods of take and license ping when October waterfowl concentrations are requirements established by the White Earth Res- present. Few trappers in this area are active before ervation Tribal Council and Refuge coordination. On mid-November when furs “prime-up”. That, coupled the remainder of the Refuge (zones 6 and 7, and por- with the small number of permittees, results in little tions of 3, 4, and 5), regulations of the Minnesota disturbance of waterfowl. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are applicable. Indirect impacts to wildlife production do result from the removal of animals under a trapping pro- Damage Control Trapping: Under provisions of gram. In many instances, these impacts are positive. 50 CFR 31.14, the Refuge Manager may conduct Mink and raccoon are predators on waterfowl at operations to take or destroy animals that are detri- various stages in the production cycle. Controlling mental to the Refuge’s management program or populations of predators on waterfowl has generally that are destroying federal property. Instances for positive impacts on the Refuge purpose. exercise of this authority would include control of beaver damage to real property such as roads and The Refuge is saturated with beaver colonies and water control structures and control of small pioneering individuals. At these population levels, rodents in and around Refuge buildings. Operations an increasing number of individuals are interfering may be conducted by Refuge staff or contractor/ with water control activities by placing dams at the permittees as directed by the Refuge Manager. control structures and/or in the delivery ditches, hindering the movement of water between managed When would the use be conducted? The trapping Refuge wetlands. These dams also cause damage to seasons for various species of furbearers generally the Refuge infrastructure due to the resultant flood- runs from September 1 through mid-May. Trapping ing at water control structures. The flooding under- for beaver, red fox and striped skunk occurs mines Refuge and county roadway integrity and throughout the year, at times and problem sites increases the potential for these areas to washout. It throughout the Refuge, as directed by the Refuge is desirable and cost effective to allow a trapping Manager. program to reduce these populations, thereby reducing the Refuge’s annual maintenance costs Availability of Resources: associated with the adverse impacts of beaver activ- Estimated administrative costs of the program ity. are 10 staff days, or about $3,500 of salaries and Managing beaver and muskrat populations, at fringe benefits. Approximately 70 percent of that reasonable levels, through a trapping program, time involves administration of the program, includ- results in positive impacts to waterfowl and other ing permit drawings, reporting requirements, aquatic wildlife species by habitat enhancement. enforcement, and place of locks. The remainder con- Muskrats build houses and dens using aquatic vege- sists of typing permits, answering trapping related tation, thus creating openings available for fish, questions via telephone, email or mail. Administra- waterfowl and other migratory birds. Beaver dams tive costs for the nuisance beaver control activities create ponded habitat, and their lodges are also are approximately $2,800 and include administra- associated with openings in aquatic vegetation beds. tion of special use permit, coordination with trapper These benefits minimize the need to commit Refuge and reporting. resources to achieve these habitat conditions. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: When considering impacts to Refuge purpose, Control of predators that prey on nesting water- impacts of the trapping program obviously include fowl and other ground nesting birds improves suc- those to the furbearer populations themselves. Indi- cess of these birds. Direct impacts to the waterfowl vidual animals are harvested and removed, yet the

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 177 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Minnesota DNR indicates furbearer populations are Trapping is not a priority public use on National stable to increasing. Harvest data derived from Wildlife Refuge System lands as identified in the trapper Fur Catch Reports indicate that trapper National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. efficiency has remained fairly constant despite The damage to dike structures, forest and marsh fewer total animals trapped. Harvest data best habitat within the Refuge from an over-abundance reflects the number of trappers, trapping condi- of beaver requires control of these populations. A tions, and fur prices. limited number of migratory waterfowl are present during the majority of the trapping activity and dis- Public Review and Comment: turbance to resident wildlife is minimal and tempo- This compatibility determination was part of the rary. Draft Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Compre- With the decade long decline in the fur market hensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmen- and trapping participation, control of furbearer pop- tal Assessment. Public notification and review ulations are being lost. Trapping assists in maintain- includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- ing a healthy balance between furbearers and eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media habitat, and safeguarding Refuge infrastructure. announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. High populations of predator, such as the red fox, Comments received and agency responses will be can decrease nest success of ground-nesting migra- included in the final CCP. tory birds, thus compromising a purpose of the Ref- Determination: uge. Other furbearers damage Refuge infrastructure such as beaver that plug water con- _____ Use is not compatible. trol structures. Costs of repair require the Refuge to divert resources away from other management X Use is compatible with the following stipu- activities that otherwise meet the purposes of the lations. Refuge. Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The trapping program, as managed and with stip- To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife ulations previously described, does not materially Refuge System and Tamarac NWR goals and objec- interfere with or detract from the Service’s ability to tives, trapping of furbearers can only occur under meet Refuge purposes or the mission of the the following stipulations: National Wildlife Refuge System. It does support Refuge management objectives and overall, man- 1. This use must be conducted in accordance aged furbearer trapping contributes to the purposes with state, tribal and federal regulations, and of the Refuge by maintaining vigor and health of special Refuge regulations published in the furbearer populations and by safeguarding Refuge Refuge Hunting Regulations and Public Use infrastructure critical to habitat for scores of fish Regulations brochures. and wildlife species. 2. Trappers must obtain a Special Use Permit to Signature: trap on the Refuge and comply with existing Refuge Trapping Regulations. Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  Sept. 7, 2010 3. The following Refuge-specific regulations and restrictions apply: Concurrence: 4. Refuge is open from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 5. Snowmobiles and ATVs are prohibited on Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020 Refuge roads and trails. 6. Parking, blocking, or in any manner restricting access to roads and gates is prohibited. 7. The trapping program is monitored annually and trappers will continue to be required to report effort and catch. 8. Regulations can be altered or areas closed as needed to meet wildlife and habitat objectives. Justification:

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 178 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Establishing Food Plots for Resident Wild- The use must be carried out in accordance with the life stipulations listed below. Typically, these food plots are maintained multiple years and sometimes Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management rotated between locations on the easement for plant District (District) or insect pest resiliency. Following abandonment, Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: food plots are replanted to perennial vegetation. The use of food plots also reinforces a shared con-  “... conservation, management, and restoration servation interest between the U.S. Fish and Wild- of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and life Service and the conservation easement owners. their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. Food plots are not a priority public use as identi- 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System fied in the Refuge Improvement Act. Food plots are Administration Act) a non-essential but helpful tool to facilitate two priority uses (hunting and wildlife observation) since  FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee they help maintain high populations of species title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm widely viewed as desirable to view and hunt. and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002. Refuge Purpose(s): Availability of Resources:

 FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - The cost of establishing and managing food plots “… purposes of this reservation are the is borne by private landowners, requiring minimal preservation and maintenance of the wetland Service resources. There is a modest administrative and floodplain areas existing....as well as cost associated with developing Special Use Permits protection and enhancement of plant and and overseeing compliance. These costs typically animal habitat and populations.” involve a few hours of staff time annually. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: Anticipated Impacts of the Use: “...To administer a national network of lands and Food plots are approximately 5 acres or less in waters for the conservation, management, and size, generally located on land that has been aban- where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, doned from farming. The planting of agricultural and plant resources and their habitats within the crops for food essentially eliminates the land for use United States for the benefit of present and future by ground nesting wildlife. The loss of a few acres of generations of Americans.” potential nesting cover would have minimal impact. Description of Use: Most grassland bird species generate far better production when nesting in large contiguous blocks of What is the use? Allow the establishment of food grassland. Careful site location of food plots in field plots on FmHA Conservation Easements to provide corners or “out of the way”, odd areas can avoid cover and food sources during harsh winter condi- breaking up a large grassland block into smaller tions. Particularly during severe winters, food plots fragments. Some migratory birds actually benefit are widely recognized as important to maintain pop- from the effect of adding more vegetative edges and ulations of resident wildlife. encouraging some annual weed growth in and around a grassland block. However, these tend to be Where is the use conducted? The use can occur species whose populations are less imperiled than throughout the Tamarac Wetland Management Dis- those requiring large grassland blocks. Impacts to trict on specific areas identified as critical wintering waterfowl nesting can be reduced but not eliminated areas for resident wildlife. by locating the food plots strategically and confining When is the use conducted? Food plots are small their use to critical areas. Stipulations identified fields of agricultural crops with some or the entire later in this document will prevent critical resources crop left standing through the winter. Typically, such as native prairie remnants or large, contiguous these food plots are maintained for multiple years. blocks of grassland or forest habitat from being degraded or destroyed by food plots. How is the use conducted? The food plots are maintained by private easement owners under a Special Use Permit issued by the Refuge Manager.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 179 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Impacts from herbicide use to establish and 7. Chemical use is restricted to the Region 3 maintain food plots will be greatly reduced by Pesticide Approval list and all chemical label restricting products to zero or low toxicity chemi- requirements and restrictions. cals. No insecticide use will be allowed on food plots. Runoff and erosion are minimized with proper food 8. The permittee is required to re-seed the food plot topographical location. plot to native vegetation if/when it is abandoned. Food plots tend to be popular areas for hunting and the increased levels of hunting around food Justification: plots will cause mild increases in wildlife distur- Controlled use of food plots will not materially bance. These periodic disturbances should be interfere with or detract from the purpose of FmHA mainly limited to autumn and early winter hunting conservation easements or the National Wildlife seasons and produce no breeding season impacts Refuge System. Food plots can create significant and only minor disturbance impacts to waterfowl. interference with conservation easement purposes The cultivating, planting, and chemical applica- and are thus more stringently controlled to ensure tion activities associated with food plots creates that they remain compatible. Allowing the use of brief episodes of intrusion from agricultural equip- food plots can lead to higher and more stable resi- ment but this disturbance impact to wildlife is small. dent wildlife populations by reducing catastrophic population crashes during severe winters. These Public Review and Comment: higher populations facilitate two priority public uses, hunting and wildlife observation. The impacts This compatibility determination was part of the to waterfowl and other migratory birds are modest Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Com- based on limiting the size and location of food plots, prehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environ- and the stipulations in place. mental Assessment. Public notification and review includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- Signature: eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  Comments received and agency responses will be Sept. 7, 2010 included in the final CCP. Concurrence: Determination: Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 _____ Use is not compatible. Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020 X Use is compatible with the following stipulations. Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 1. Areas for food plots must be identified as critical wintering sites for resident wildlife. 2. Food plots will not have negative impacts on critical habitats such as wetlands, native prairie remnants, and continuity of forests. 3. Food plots will be located to avoid grassland and forest fragmentation. 4. Allowable species for planting in food plots will include: corn, soybeans, sunflowers, wheat, barley, oats, rye, buckwheat, millet, and sorghum. 5. Food plots will be no greater than five (5) acres and will occupy no more than 5 percent of the total acreage of the conservation easement. 6. No more than one food plot in any year will be authorized per easement tract.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 180 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Native Grassland Seeding and Weed Con- methods can also be employed in mid to late fall trol when a dormant seeding is desired. District staff would normally carryout the seed bed preparations Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management and seeding. Where normal preparation techniques District (District) are not feasible, cooperative farming is an excellent Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: option to prepare a seedbed. Cooperative farming agreements are forged with easement owners or an  “... conservation, management, and restoration area farmer and normally run three years. A multi- of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and year agreement is needed to generate cooperator their habitats for the benefit of present and interest. Because of the extra investment in break- future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. ing the grassland sod, herbicide use, rock removal, 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System and inevitable wildlife depredation losses, coopera- Administration Act) tors generally lose money the first year, break even  FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee the second, and gain a profit in the final year. At title transfer properties Consolidated Farm agreement expiration, the site is left unplowed in a and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002. clean small grain or soybean stubble and broadcast seeded the following spring. The great advantage to Refuge Purpose(s): this method is farming practices control and even  FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - eradicate noxious weed competition; replenish soil "… purposes of this reservation are the nitrogen and other nutrient levels; and delivers preservation and maintenance of the wetland good soil compaction for seed germination, all lead- and floodplain areas existing....as well as ing to faster and more successful native species protection and enhancement of plant and establishment. animal habitat and populations." Whichever approach is taken, one application of National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: glyphosate herbicide is employed after approxi- “...To administer a national network of lands and mately two weeks of spring re-growth to suppress waters for the conservation, management, and weeds while native species are developing their root where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, systems. One or more clipping of emerging vegeta- and plant resources and their habitats within the tion often follows to control annual weeds and bian- United States for the benefit of present and future nual thistle species. generations of Americans.” Why is the use being proposed? An almost com- Description of Use: plete domination of exotic and invasive species has emerged on most grassland sites since farming What is the use? This use entails establishing or abandonment in the 1990s. The predomination of enhancing native grassland communities, through noxious weeds and introduced grasses yields mini- seeding and weed control activities, on FmHA con- mal wildlife value, while displacing far more benefi- servation easements in the Tamarac WMD. cial native vegetation. Plumeless and Canada thistle, spotted knapweed, quack grass, smooth Where is the use conducted? Seeding and weed brome grass and Kentucky bluegrass are the most control occur on grassland units within the boundar- common exotic species observed. Stands of non- ies of FmHA conservation easements. Grassland native vegetation are low in diversity and bear light stands vary in size from 8 to 40 acres. stem densities that provide fair to poor nesting and How is the use conducted? Seeding of native foraging cover for migratory birds. grassland species is accomplished by broadcasting Restored or enhanced native grasslands fulfill regional eco-type seed over the last winter’s snow, management objectives to benefit migratory bird or in spring immediately following a prescribed production, particularly ground nesting waterfowl burn. Occasionally a grass drill is used to directly and grassland passerines. inter-seed into the sod of an existing stand of grass. Typically, seedbed preparation activities such as burning, grazing, or haying are conducted to remove litter and residue prior to drilling. Both

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 181 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Seeding and weed control is not a priority public Determination: use, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge Sys- tem Improvement Act of 1997, but rather serves as _____ Use is not compatible. a management instrument for ensuring District pri- X Use is compatible with the following stipu- ority habitat objectives are being addressed. lations. Availability of Resources: Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Staff time is required to prepare grassland sites To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife for seeding, planting, and weed control. Seed is Refuge System and the District goals and objec- acquired from the Detroit Lakes Wetland Manage- tives, grassland restoration and weed control can ment District who harvests native prairie seed on an only occur under the following stipulations: annual basis. In some years, the District makes a nominal contribution to assist with combine con- 1. Only locally adapted native prairie species tracting costs. Total expenses may vary from $500 will be seeded. to $5,000 depending on the size of the grassland site, but is within budget constraints with proper plan- 2. Weed control will be limited to only the extent necessary to promote native seedling germi- ning. Cooperative farming is a desirable option that nation and bolting. off-sets project costs. Rent payments or in-kind contributions such as seeding and weed control are pro- 3. Herbicide applications must strictly adhere to vided by the cooperator. There is a minor label recommendations and restrictions. investment in terms of time preparing and overseeing farming agreements, however this is well within 4. Cooperator obligations outlined in a coopera- available resources. tive farming agreement will be stringently followed. Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Justification: Grassland restoration activities generate both direct and indirect impacts to wildlife. Direct nega- Diverse, healthy, weed-free grasslands provide tive impacts include temporary displacement of critical habitat for wildlife, particularly ground nest- nesting wildlife from grassland sites due to prepara- ing migratory birds. Habitat use disruption for tion, seeding, and weed control operations. Farming establishing or enhancing native grasslands is a sig- equipment may occasionally destroy a nest, however nificant, but temporary impact. The long-term bene- these instances are rare. Glyphosate is mostly non- fits far outweigh short term losses by eradicating or toxic with no soil residual activity. Wildlife directly reducing less beneficial exotic vegetation, creating contacting this chemical could be impacted, but inci- more secure nesting cover, attracting a greater vari- dents are uncommon. Cooperative farming agree- ety of migratory birds, and reducing long-term ments would temporarily eliminate nesting and maintenance needs thereby eliminating additional winter cover for several years. Negative indirect wildlife disturbances. impacts would generally involve wildlife disturbance This use is a critical habitat management tool and by machinery, but would be temporal. Long-term does not materially interfere with or detract from impacts are positive. Replacement of non-native the purpose of FmHA conservation easements or vegetation or enhancement by establishing diverse the National Wildlife Refuge System. stands of native grassland species will provide dense and structurally diverse habitat benefiting nesting Signature: and foraging conditions for wildlife. Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  Public Review and Comment: Sept. 7, 2010 This compatibility determination was part of the Concurrence: Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Com- prehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environ- Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 mental Assessment. Public notification and review Mandatory 10 or 15 year Re-evaluation Date: 2020 includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final CCP.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 182 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Prescribed Grazing When is the use conducted? Grazing activity can start in May, and ends around September 1. Grazing Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management is confined to one paddock at a time, is of high inten- District (District) sity, but short duration, usually no longer than 8 to Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 10 days. Where private landowners maintain annual grazing rights on the easement, prescribed grazing  “... conservation, management, and restoration may continue annually. On easements where the of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and landowner does not have grazing rights, grazing to their habitats for the benefit of present and meet management objectives may occur every 3 to 6 future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. years depending on the effectiveness of the treat- 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System ment. Administration Act) How is the use conducted? Grazing specialists  FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation title transfer properties Consolidated Farm Service (NRCS) are consulted to develop prescribed and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002. grazing plans for selected easements. Livestock for- Refuge Purpose(s): age balance assessments are completed for sites that require treatment. Grazing agents are typically  FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations cattle, but can include domestic sheep, goats, and "… purposes of this reservation are the horses. The number and size of the livestock deter- preservation and maintenance of the wetland mines the desired stocking rate of and floodplain areas existing....as well as the producer and protection and enhancement of plant and their forage requirements. The forage capability of the site determines the sustainable stocking rate animal habitat and populations." and allowable grazing duration. Livestock are National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: moved from one paddock to the next when the stubble height of the forage is reduced to 4 inches. The “...To administer a national network of lands and grazing period runs 3 to 10 days depending on the waters for the conservation, management, and stocking rate and the size of the paddock. All pad- where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, docks must experience a minimum resting period of and plant resources and their habitats within the 30 days. If the minimum residual stubble height United States for the benefit of present and future cannot be maintained, for instance due to drought, generations of Americans.” the livestock are moved to a sacrificial site off ease- Description of Use: ment for feeding until forage resumes growing. Landowners and/or renters are required to enroll in What is the use? Prescribed grazing is the con- the NRCS Environmental Quality Incentive Pro- trolled rotation of domestic livestock, normally cat- gram (EQIP) for a ten year period, binding them to tle, between paddocks that improves grassland the grazing plan in annual grazing situations. health, species diversity, and represses unwanted invasive plants on conservation easements. Grazing Watering systems are occasionally needed in cer- is a valuable tool where other grassland manage- tain paddocks where natural water sources are not ment methods, such as prescribed burning or hay- available. In this case temporary watering tanks are ing, are implausible, or on easements where the set up on grassland sites which only require periodic landowner retains the rights to seasonally graze and treatment. On easements bearing perpetual grazing a rotational grazing system is more desirable. rights, permanent tanks and pads are developed but located off the easement. On sites where annual Where is the use conducted? Rotational grazing grazing occurs, livestock sometimes erode soils and occurs within the boundaries of FmHA conservation reduce water quality when watering from natural easements that possess grassy fenced pastures and wetlands and streams. In these situations, armored vary in size from 40 to more than 220 acres. Pad- watering ramps are constructed according to NRCS docks range from 10 to over 200 acres in size. practice guidelines, to protect these riparian zones. Grazed grasslands consist of either tame grasses or seeded tall grass prairie and bear varying degrees Fencing is a mandatory requirement to control of shrub encroachment. grazing and will be the responsibility of the cooperating private party. On annually grazed easements,

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 183 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

permanent fencing is constructed for paddock for- ment and trampling will be incurred, numerous mation. Where prescribed grazing is only a periodic nesting studies have revealed very good nesting treatment, temporary single strand electric fencing success in grazed areas. Where disturbance grazing is employed to maintain paddocks and market rate is only employed periodically, long-term gains of grazing fees will be required. Grazing fees are improved grassland density and diversity will out- charged according to market rates. Market rates weigh any short-term losses. Where grazing is car- will be determined annually in consultation with ried out annually, maximum benefits for grassland USDA on prevailing local grazing rates. species will not be realized, but is a better alternative to season long over grazing that typically Why is the use being proposed? Rotational graz- results in poor forage recovery, dominance of inva- ing is used as a management treatment to stimulate sive non-native plant species, succession of woody the growth of desired grassland species, and repress cover types, and soil erosion. unwanted weeds and the establishment or expansion of woody vegetation into the grassland commu- Other impacts include the suppression of woody nity. vegetation. This result is positive, however, since encroachment must be minimized in order to Grasslands are disturbance dependent communi- achieve grassland management goals. ties and require the removal of excessive plant litter to maintain their health and vigor. Disturbance Impacts of fence construction and watering facili- actions, such as grazing, also keep woody vegetation ties causes disturbance to wildlife and replace some encroachment in check that would otherwise suc- habitat, but their requirement is mandatory and the ceed the desired grassland ecosystem. effects are temporary and are very short in duration. Grazing is not a priority public use as identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. As an economic use of In some situations, grazing may not be the only Refuge System lands, a compatibility determination technique employed, and rotating in other grassland for grazing is mandatory. management methods such as burning or haying could result in greater ecological benefits. Availability of Resources: Public Review and Comment: Grazing agreements are developed by NRCS and exhaust no Service resources. A minimal amount of This compatibility determination was part of the Service staff time is required to prepare Special Use Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Com- Permits associated with these agreements. Staff prehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environ- also invests a small amount of time monitoring com- mental Assessment. Public notification and review pliance and evaluating the biological effects of graz- includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- ing, however, this time is negligible since staff must eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media monitor other easement compliance requirements announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. anyway. All perimeter fences are in place on ease- Comments received and agency responses will be ments where the landowner retains annual grazing included in the final CCP. privileges. Fencing costs for permanent or temporary fencing, and the construction of watering Determination: ramps and tanks is cost shared between the cooper- _____ Use is not compatible. ator and NRCS. In situations where prescribed grazing is being used as a periodic management X Use is compatible with the following stipu- tool, grazing fees are charged according to market lations. rates, minus fencing expenses. These funds usually Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: off-set the administrative costs invested to manage this activity. 1. Unless additional justification is provided, Anticipated Impacts of the Use: grazing will run from May 1 to September 1. On easements where the landowner does not Prescribed grazing, due to its intensity, signifi- reserve annual grazing rights, grazing will be cantly reduces the height and density of grassland restricted to a frequency of no more than vegetation for a short period of time. Depending on once every 3 years. If factors beyond human the number of paddocks, some areas may be grazed control, such as drought, occur that prevent multiple times during the season. The grassland completion of the rotation, grazing may be structure will be greatly altered impacting grass- considered the following year. land bird species that require tall vegetation for 2. All fencing and watering facilit nesting and foraging. While some impacts to ground ies costs will be borne by the cooperator/landowner. nesting species, such as waterfowl, due to displace-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 184 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

3. Forage stubble height may not drop below 4 inches. Livestock must be moved to the next paddock or removed from the conservation easement. 4. No supplemental or sacrificial feeding is permitted on the conservation easement. 5. No insecticides, including insecticidal dusting bags, will be used on WPAs or easements. 6. Control and confinement of the livestock will be the responsibility of the permittee. 7. If the landowner or cooperator fails to abide by the terms of grazing plan, the use will be terminated. Justification: Controlled grazing with domestic livestock will not materially interfere with or detract from the purpose of FmHA conservation easements or the National Wildlife Refuge System. Livestock can be proxies for the historic ungulates who once roamed and maintained grasslands. Controlled grazing creates temporary disturbances and changes to the structure of grassland vegetation and reduces shrub and tree encroachment. While these short-term impacts result in less than ideal wildlife habitat conditions, the effects are temporal and are far exceeded by the long-term benefits and sustained objectives of maintaining a healthy and productive grassland ecosystem for migratory birds. Pre- scribed grazing is a feasible alternative or comple- mentary technique to other grassland management tools. The grassland community and productivity of many migratory birds will not thrive or even perpet- uate without periodic disturbance. Signature: Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  Sept. 7, 2010 Concurrence: Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2020

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 185 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Haying and Mowing Where is the use conducted? Haying/mowing occurs on grassland units within the boundaries of Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management FmHA conservation easements. Grassland stands District (District) vary in size from 8 to 40 acres. Haying or cutting for Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): firebreaks would involve very small acreages, generally 16 feet in width around the perimeter of these  “... conservation, management, and restoration fields. of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and When is the use conducted? Mowing to control future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. annual and perennial weed competition on new 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System grassland seedings occurs anytime from late May Administration Act) through September. Weeds are generally clipped sometime between the flowering and seed formation  FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee stages of the principle competitors of concern. Fre- title transfer properties Consolidated Farm quency of weed clipping depends on seedling and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002. growth, but may occur several times during the Refuge Purpose(s): growing year and annually up to three consecutive years. When haying is utilized as a tool to enhance  FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - established grasslands, cutting transpires after July "… purposes of this reservation are the 15 when most ground nests, particularly waterfowl preservation and maintenance of the wetland have hatched and ends September 1 to allow suffi- and floodplain areas existing....as well as cient time for some re-growth of winter cover. Fre- protection and enhancement of plant and quency of treatment ranges from once every three animal habitat and populations." to six years. Mowing for purposes of establishing National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: fire breaks are generally conducted in the fall prior to spring burning activities.  “...To administer a national network of lands How is the use conducted? Haying is often used and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, as a strategy to help establish or maintain grassland wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats habitat. In the case of grassland maintenance, cutting is carried out as low to the ground as possible, within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” and when combined with racking, removes most of the old plant litter thereby stimulating new plant Description of Use: growth. For grassland restoration or enhancement, haying or clipping is conducted in two different What is the use? Haying or mowing is the cutting ways. Haying is conducted to remove residual plant of noxious weeds for grassland restoration, or the material, a necessity when restoration methods cutting, baling, and removal of vegetation for pur- involve interseeding into the sod with a grass drill. poses of reinvigorating established grassland habi- Whether establishing native grass by drilling or tat on FmHA conservation easements. Easement broadcasting, follow up clipping is employed to grassland communities fall into two general catego- repress weed growth that competes with the newly ries: stands dominated by non-native cool season seeded vegetation. Competing non-native plants are species such as smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, clipped just above the tops of the emerging native and orchard grass; and seeded tall grass native prai- grassland species to reduce shading and prevent rie represented primarily by big bluestem, switch reproduction of non-desirable plant species. grass, and Indian grass. Both native and non-native forbs are present in both communities and include Haying and mowing is carried out with standard species of goldenrod, aster, sunflower, and yarrow. agricultural tractors and implements through Coop- Haying is typically done through a Cooperative erative Farming Agreements, Special Use Permits, Farming Agreement or Special Use Permit issued or station equipment and staff. When baling is by the Refuge Manager to an easement owner or desired, skid steers and hay trailers are used to load contractor. Haying is also used to create fire breaks and remove the bales. for prescribed fire operations.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 186 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Why is the use being proposed? Haying or mow- nesting, foraging, and wintering. Additionally, cut- ing is an effective, often crucial tool for grassland ting prevents encroachment of woody vegetation management and restoration. Construction of fire which will supplant desired grassland species and breaks is essential to controlling prescribed fire favor nest predator use. While cutting for purposes operations. Healthy grassland ecosystems require of controlling weeds likewise removes foraging and periodic disturbance to maintain species diversity perch site habitat, mowing is carried out at a and productivity. Haying is a viable alternative to greater height and produces less impacts than hay- rejuvenating and maintaining decadent grassland ing. Long-term benefits of weed control outweigh communities when treatments such as burning or temporary losses through the perpetuation of highly grazing are infeasible or impractical. Intermittent desirable native tall grass species and the control of cutting also prevents shrubs and trees from becom- invasive species that displace more beneficial native ing established, thereby preserving the grassland grassland species. ecosystem. In grassland restoration situations, mowing or clipping of weeds and non native grasses Public Review and Comment: is often critical to establishment and minimizes her- This compatibility determination was part of the bicide applications. Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Com- Haying is not a priority public use, as defined by prehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environ- the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement mental Assessment. Public notification and review Act of 1997, but rather serves as a management includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- instrument for ensuring District priority habitat eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media objectives are being addressed. announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be Availability of Resources: included in the final CCP. No additional fiscal resources are needed to con- Determination: duct this use. Needed management staff time is already committed and available. Most of the work _____ Use is not compatible. needed to prepare for this use would be done during X Use is compatible with the following stipu- habitat management planning. The decision to use a lations. cooperative farmer for haying would require some additional time to develop and oversee the needed Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Special Use Permit or Cooperative Farming Agree- ment, but would be relatively minor and within 1. Haying is only permitted between July 15 and September 1, and no m existing District resources. Some of these costs ore than once every three years on the same site. would be off-set by hay value paid back by the cooperator. 2. Hay bales must be removed from the conser- Anticipated Impacts of the Use: vation easement within one week of baling. Haying or mowing result in short-term impacts, 3. Haying or mowing must fulfill specific habitat related management objectives of the conser- but long-term benefits to migratory birds and resi- vation easement. dent wildlife using conservation easements. Short- term impacts include disturbance and temporary 4. For purposes of controlling invasive plants, displacement caused by noisy heavy equipment. the cutting head of mowers will be set no Restricting cutting activities to the mid to late sum- lower than necessary to remove the majority mer period could potentially damage late nesting of the target species seed heads. efforts by migratory birds, however most nesting studies have concluded nest densities during this Justification: timeframe are very low. Removal of standing Haying or mowing will not materially interfere grasses will also result in the seasonal loss of habitat with or detract from the purpose of FmHA conser- for those species requiring tall vegetation to forage vation easements or the National Wildlife Refuge and perch. While some vegetation re-growth will System if carried out under the required stipula- occur during the fall, winter cover conditions will be tions. Haying and mowing is a valuable management less than ideal. This condition, however, would not tool that provides greater long-term habitat benefits occur on an annual basis, but rather on a 3-to 6-year for reestablished and existing grasslands that other- treatment cycle. Long-term benefits far exceed any wise would convert to a non-desired woody cover short duration impacts. Mowing and haying treat- type or become dominated by exotic vegetation. The ments stimulate the regrowth and vigor of all grass- productivity and abundance of federal trust species land species yielding higher quality habitat for such as waterfowl or grassland obligate species

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 187 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations would slowly decline in the absence of haying, mowing or similar treatments on these sites. Grasslands are a disturbance-dependent ecosystem that requires periodic renovation to maintain their vigor, diversity, and the structure necessary for migratory bird use. Haying is an effective alternative when other management methods are infeasible. Signature: Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  Sept. 7, 2010 Concurrence: Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 Mandatory 10-year Reevaluation Date: 2020

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 188 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Establishing and Maintaining Nesting nesting season. Nesting material for waterfowl Structures for Migratory Birds structures is typically checked or added once a year during the late winter or early spring. Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District (District) How is the use conducted? Occasional requests for this use originate from easement owners or con- Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: servation groups. Approval is granted by the Ref-  “... conservation, management, and restoration uge Manager on a case by case basis through a of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and Special Use Permit. Waterfowl nesting structures their habitats for the benefit of present and are preferably attached to poles to minimize preda- future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. tion, but occasionally affixed to trees. Bluebird 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System boxes are mounted on posts, often in pairs to dis- Administration Act) courage tree swallow monopolization.  FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee Why is the use being proposed? In all cases, the title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm intent of the permittee is to enhance wildlife popula- and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002. tions by providing safe nesting opportunities. Refuge Purpose(s): Placing artificial nesting structures on conservation easements is not a priority public use as defined  FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improve- "… purposes of this reservation are the ment Act. The use is a non-essential contributor to preservation and maintenance of the wetland other priority uses such as wildlife observation, and floodplain areas existing....as well as wildlife photography, and environmental education. protection and enhancement of plant and animal habitat and populations." Availability of Resources: National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: Installation, monitoring, and maintenance of artificial nest structures on conservation easements are  “...To administer a national network of lands the full responsibility of the permit holder. There is and waters for the conservation, management, a small administrative cost to the Service in terms of and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, issuing Special Use Permits, but well within District wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats resources. Should cooperators fail to adequately within the United States for the benefit of maintain the structures, there will be some cost present and future generations of Americans.” associated with removing abandoned structures. Description of Use: Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose(s): What is the use? This use pertains to the place- The installation and maintenance of artificial ment and maintenance of artificial nesting struc- nesting structures offer little if any negative impact tures for migratory birds. Primary examples to wildlife or habitat. In fact, if placed properly and include bluebird boxes, wood duck boxes, and mal- maintained, nesting structures can assist in enhanc- lard hen houses, but could include nesting struc- ing migratory bird production by providing safer tures for other species. nesting sites or opportunities for nesting that other- Where is the use conducted? Nesting structures wise don’t exist. Examples include the placement of: are typically erected over water or along the edges wood duck boxes in areas where there are no natu- of wetlands in the case of waterfowl, or along open ral tree cavities; mallard hen houses where there is fields when attempting to attract bluebirds on limited nesting cover; and bluebird boxes where FmHA conservation easement lands. Other types of cavity producing snags and wooden posts have been nesting boxes may be located within interior forest removed. Studies have shown that nest success for areas for other migratory species. many duck species is actually higher when utilizing artificial nest structures rather than nesting in When is the use conducted? The structures are grasslands where they are more susceptible to normally installed in late winter or early spring. mammalian predation. There is a brief wildlife dis- Bluebird boxes are cleaned out at the end of each turbance caused during placement and maintenance of the structures, but it is minor and temporary.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 189 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Com- prehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environ- mental Assessment. Public notification and review includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be included in the final CCP. Determination: _____ Use is not compatible. X Use is compatible with the following stipulations. Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 1. Approval must be obtained from the Refuge Manager through a Special Use Permit prior to the activity. 2. The permittee will be required to remove all unmaintained nesting structures from the conservation easement. 3. The placement of artificial nesting structures must benefit Service trust species and compliment management objectives for the conservation easement. Justification: Artificial nesting structures do not materially interfere with or detract from the purpose of FmHA conservation easements or the National Wildlife Refuge System. Appropriate use of nesting structures can actually contribute to migratory bird objectives by providing nesting opportunities that are naturally narrow and by reducing nest predation effects. Signature: Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  Sept. 7, 2010 Concurrence: Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2020

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 190 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Temporal Upland Disturbance for Right-of- When is the use conducted? ROW work can occur Way (ROW) Projects and Full Restoration anytime from frost out in the spring through fall freeze up. The duration of the work ranges from less Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management than a day to several months depending on the scale District (District) of the work. Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: How is the use conducted? In most situations, the  “... conservation, management, and restoration use involves accessing, traveling, or turning around of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and large mobile equipment on the conservation ease- their habitats for the benefit of present and ment in close proximity to the ROW boundary. Proj- future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. ect examples would include culvert installation or 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System reshaping of the road ditch and slope. Utility type Administration Act) projects might also include tree limbing to facilitate power line maintenance.  FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm Why is the use being proposed? Road improve- and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002. ment projects are conducted to improve transporta- Refuge Purpose(s): tion safety. Utility repair work maintains essential services to the local community.  FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - "… purposes of this reservation are the ROW projects are not a priority public use, as preservation and maintenance of the wetland defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System and floodplain areas existing....as well as Improvement Act of 1997, but rather represent, in protection and enhancement of plant and most cases, a public safety undertaking, ensuring animal habitat and populations." District priority habitat objectives are being addressed. National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: Availability of Resources: “...To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and There are negligible administrative costs relating where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, to Special Use Permit issuance and monitoring that and plant resources and their habitats within the is well within station time and budget constraints. United States for the benefit of present and future All habitat restoration requirements and costs are generations of Americans.” the responsibility of the permittee. Description of Use: Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Purpose(s): What is the use? Disturbances to FmHA conser- The impacts to the associated uplands of the vation easement uplands for Right-of-Way (ROW) ROW will be minimal and temporary. In most cases projects pertain to maintenance work carried out by the impact will consist of the matting of vegetation road authorities and utility companies. Occasionally by heavy equipment along the perimeter of the township, county, or utility officials request author- ROW. In situations where the sod is unavoidably ity to temporarily work outside their ROW to repair destroyed or trees are removed or limbed, the per- or improve the roadway or their utility related facil- mittee will replant the original vegetation. Approval ity. This use can cause a disturbance to wildlife and to destroy vegetation will be limited to sites previ- damage to upland vegetation, but involves no ously tilled or otherwise disrupted. No native prairie expanded or new ROWs and full restoration of the remnants, wetlands, or unique communities such as original vegetative community and condition is white pine, may be impacted. required. Minor impacts from construction work may Where is the use conducted? The use occurs include disturbing and displacing a few migratory immediately adjacent to the road or utility ROW on birds and individual wildlife residents, but will be the conservation easement, normally along its confined tightly along easement/ROW boundaries. boundary. Roadway disturbances do not generate much greater turbulence than that created by the routine

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 191 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

passing of motor vehicles. There could be a slightly Justification: greater disturbance generated by work within utility ROWs that run into the interior of the easement. ROWs are present on nearly every FmHA conservation easement within the Tamarac WMD and Public Review and Comment: were established prior to the federal government acquiring interest in the land. Impacts to easement This compatibility determination was part of the wildlife and their habitats will be slight and tempo- Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Com- rary under the conditions outlined above. This use prehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environ- supports public safety and maintenance of essential mental Assessment. Public notification and review services to the local community and will not materi- includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- ally interfere with or detract from the purpose of eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media FmHA conservation easements or the National announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. Wildlife Refuge System if the stipulations above are Comments received and agency responses will be followed. included in the final CCP. Signature: Determination: Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  _____ Use is not compatible. Sept. 7, 2010 X Use is compatible with the following stipu- Concurrence: lations. Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2020 1. All work must be authorized by a Special Use Permit. Permit conditions, including full habitat restoration if applicable, must be met. 2. The use must, wherever possible, avoid or minimize damage to easement lands. No easement survey monuments may be disturbed. 3. No overnight parking of equipment or materials is permitted on the easement. All conservation easement signs must be reinstalled in good condition if removed for construction work. 4. No work or vehicle use will be permitted on wetlands, native prairie remnants, or areas possessing unique or declining communities.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 192 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wood Cutting/Timber Harvest When is the use conducted? Wood removal activities may be authorized throughout the year. Most Station Name: Tamarac Wetland Management often, wood removal activities for the purpose of District (District) firewood salvage will occur September through Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: December, while commercial harvest activities occur during the winter months when frozen ground  “... conservation, management, and restoration will facilitate access and afford protection to under- of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and lying cultural resources, soils and vegetation. their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. How is the use conducted? Harvest equipment 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System may range from chainsaws and axes, to traditional Administration Act) logging equipment such as feller-bunchers and log skidders. Sites may be accessed by any passenger  FmHA (Farmers Home Administration) fee vehicle, all-terrain-vehicles, snow machine, farm title transfer properties - Consolidated Farm tractor, or larger logging transport equipment and Rural Development Act 7 U.S.C. 2002. including semi tractor-trailers. Differences in scope Refuge Purpose(s): and necessary equipment will occur depending on the amount and type of wood available for removal.  FmHA Conservation Easement Reservations - "… purposes of this reservation are the Special Use Permits for firewood salvage are preservation and maintenance of the wetland issued to easement owners. Commercial harvest and floodplain areas existing....as well as contracts are awarded through a bidding process. protection and enhancement of plant and The number of people participating in this use var- animal habitat and populations." ies year to year depending on need and has ranged from zero to three firewood permits and one com- National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: mercial contract in any given year. “...To administer a national network of lands and Why is the use being proposed? This activity will waters for the conservation, management, and only occur where the Service has determined that a where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, management need exists to remove wood. Wood and plant resources and their habitats within the removal may be authorized and desirable due to United States for the benefit of present and future damaging storm events, disease outbreaks, exces- generations of Americans.” sive beaver kills, threats to earthen water impound- Description of Use: ment structures, interference to non-easement agricultural operations and structures, or to What is the use? The removal of standing or improve forest habitat for migratory birds. fallen trees by private landowners or contractors for Wood cutting is not a priority public use, as firewood salvage, forest management, or hazardous defined fuels reduction on FmHA conservation easements. by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, but rather serves as a This covers all wood removal activities regardless of the ultimate use of the wood (e.g., firewood, pulp, management instrument for ensuring District prior- etc.). ity habitat objectives are being addressed. Availability of Resources: Where is the use conducted? On FmHA Conser- vation Easements. The scope of the activity will be Time required for planning, permit or contract determined by the management objective for the issuance, and overseeing a wood product harvest area consistent with the easement management program would require the dedication of some staff plan and by the quantity and quality of available hours, very few in the case of firewood salvage, but wood. Harvest sites will vary in size from a frac- significantly more when managing a commercial tional acre up to 200 acres depending on the site and level activity. In permitting a wood products har- management objectives. Firewood cutting will be vest, the manager has identified a management limited to dead or downed trees and the stipulations need and presumably has secured and prioritized listed below. station resources to that end. Based on past experience, we estimate that administering a small timber

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 193 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

harvest program will require from $1,000 to $5,000 Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: in staff salary costs for commercial grade operations, considerably less for simple firewood permit To ensure compatibility with National Wildlife management. Some of these costs will be offset by Refuge System and Tamarac WMD goals and objec- stumpage fees paid by commercial interests if tim- tives, firewood cutting and timber harvest can only ber is marketable. occur under the following stipulations: Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 1. No cutting operations will be permitted from April 1 through July 15 if resource priority In permitting this type of activity, the potential species are known to use the site. exists to directly impact wildlife by displacing animals from localized areas due to disturbance, or 2. Standing cavity trees which are actively used unintentionally damaging ground nests as a result by wildlife will be marked and protected. of motorized access. These impacts are avoided or 3. Vehicle access for wood removal will be lim- minimized by the timing of the activity in accor- ited to existing trails, designated ingress/ dance with site specific characteristics and the stip- egress routes that minimize damage to vege- ulations listed below. More significant impacts tation, or restricted to the frozen ground involve the temporary loss of habitat due to timber period when rutting and damage to growing removal and damage to understory vegetation by vegetation would occur. heavy logging equipment. These impacts will, however, bear long-term benefits. Ultimately, the infre- 4. A Special Use Permit will be issued that quent removal of woody vegetation is necessary for requires special conditions to avoid or mini- habitat restoration and management purposes. In mize wildlife impacts. some cases, the removal or limbing of a few trees 5. Wood cutting permits will be restricted to 5 along roads, trails, agricultural fields, buildings, and dikes is necessary to eliminate hazards for easement cords per year, but may be less depending on owners. the size of the site. Access for the purpose of removing wood may 6. Commercial equipment must be cleaned prior to entering the conservation easement. impact habitat by rutting soils, destroying ground cover, creating weed seed beds, introducing invasive 7. All wood harvest activities must comply with species, and increasing sedimentation due to runoff habitat objectives as identified in the ease- in nearby wetlands. These impacts can again be ment management plan. avoided by the timing of the activity and requiring equipment be cleaned prior to entering the conser- Justification: vation easement. As much as possible, existing The removal of dead trees for firewood reduces roads or trails will be utilized to limit the amount of hazardous fuel buildup and the severity of potential clearing required to access the desired location. wildfires. Timber removal creates openings in the Public Review and Comment: forest canopy, increases light penetration, and stimulates restocking of desired tree species, browse This compatibility determination was part of the production, and herbaceous growth. The type and Draft Tamarac Wetland Management District Com- extent of wood harvest and required stipulations are prehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environ- tailored to meet specific management objectives and mental Assessment. Public notification and review minimal wildlife impacts. Direct impacts are short includes a notice of availability published in the Fed- term and largely avoided by timing the activity so eral Register, 30-day comment period, local media that it does not disrupt wildlife production. announcements, and a public meeting at the Refuge. Comments received and agency responses will be Impacts to the habitat as a result of access for included in the final CCP. wood removal purposes are potentially significant, but also easily avoided. Access to and from these Determination: areas will be carefully controlled to avoid impacts _____ Use is not compatible. such as rutting and increased sedimentation in area wetlands due to run-off. If existing roads or trails X Use is compatible with the following stipu- are not present, access can be restricted to desig- lations. nated access routes that minimize soil and vegetation damage or to periods of frozen ground to protect underlying cultural resources.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 194 Appendix H: Compatibility Determinations

Wood removal for purposes of ecological restoration, controlling disease, elimination of fire hazards, and cooperating with adjacent land use needs contributes to management objectives and promotes easement owner cooperation. Individuals participating in wood harvest activities will operate under a Special Use Permit or contract that will possess stipulations ensuring resource protection, minimiza- tion of impacts to wildlife, and achievement of management objectives. This use is a valuable habitat management activity and does not materially interfere with or detract from the purpose of FmHA conservation easements or the National Wildlife Refuge System. Signature: Refuge Manager: s/Todd Luke (Acting)  Sept. 7, 2010 Concurrence: Regional Chief: s/Richard Schultz, Sept. 23, 2010 Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 2020

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 195

Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge: Archeological Investigations...... 199 Firewood Cutting/Timber Harvest...... 200 Mushroom, Nuts and Berry Picking...... 201 Research ...... 202 Trapping of Furbearers...... 203 Tamarac Wetland Management District: Establishing Food Plots for Resident Wildlife...... 204 Establishing and Maintaining Nesting Structures for Migratory Birds...... 205 Prescribed Grazing...... 206 Temporal Upland Disturbance for Right-of-Way Projects and Full Restoration...... 207 Wood Cutting/Timber Harvest...... 208 Grassland Seeding and Weed Control...... 209 Haying/Mowing ...... 210

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 197 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Appropriate Refuge Uses pose(s) or the Refuge System mission, and are based on sound professional judgment. The Service’s Appropriate Use policy describes the initial decision process a refuge manager follows Uses that have been administratively determined when first considering whether or not to allow a pro- to be appropriate are: posed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must first find a use to be appropriate before undertaking Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. As a compatibility review of the use and outlining the defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System stipulations of the use. Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, This policy clarifies and expands on the compati- fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and bility policy (603 FW 2.10D(1)), which describes environmental education and interpretation) are when refuge managers should deny a proposed use determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge without determining compatibility. If we find a pro- manager must still determine if these uses are composed use is not appropriate, we will not allow the patible. use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. By screening out proposed uses not appropri- Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. ate to the refuge, the refuge manager avoids States have regulations concerning take of wildlife unnecessary compatibility reviews. By following the that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We process for finding the appropriateness of a use, we consider take of wildlife under such regulations strengthen and fulfill the Refuge System mission. appropriate. However, the refuge manager must Although a refuge use may be both appropriate and determine if the activity is compatible before allow- compatible, the refuge manager retains the author- ing it on a refuge. ity to not allow the use or modify the use. Refuge uses must meet at least one of the follow- Background for this policy as it applies to Musca- ing four conditions to be deemed appropriate: tatuck NWR is found in the following statutory  It is a wildlife-dependent recreational use of a authorities: refuge as identified in the Improvement Act. National Wildlife Refuge System Administra-  It contributes to fulfilling the refuge tion Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wild- purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or life Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 goals or objectives described in a refuge U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). This law provides the author- management plan approved after the ity for establishing policies and regulations govern- Improvement Act was signed into law. ing refuge uses, including the authority to prohibit certain harmful activities. The Administration Act  The use involves the take of fish and wildlife does not authorize any particular use, but rather under state regulations. authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow The refuge manager has evaluated the use follow- uses only when they are compatible. The Improve- ing the guidelines in this policy and found that it is ment Act provides the Refuge System mission and appropriate. The criteria used by the manager to includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of evaluate appropriateness can be found on each of public uses on the Refuge System. the appropriate use forms included in this appendix. Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, (16 U.S.C. 460k). Also included under this condition are ‘specialized This law authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to uses,’ or uses that require specific authorization allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge Sys- from the Refuge System, often in the form of a spe- tem when the use is an “appropriate incidental or cial use permit, letter of authorization, or other per- secondary use.” mit document. These uses do not include uses already granted by a prior existing right. We make This policy does NOT apply to: appropriateness findings for specialized uses on a case-by-case basis. Situations Where Reserved Rights or Legal Mandates Provide We Must Allow Certain Uses. Refuge Management Activities. Refuge management activities conducted by the Refuge System or a Refuge System-authorized agent are designed to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. These activities are used to fulfill a refuge pur-

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 198 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Use: Archeological Investigations This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

Decision Criteria: Yes No (a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔ (b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (federal, state, tribal, and local)? ✔ (c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service ✔ policies?

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other ✔ document? (f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has ✔ been proposed?

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s ✔ natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural resources? (j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✔ uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use Not Appropriate (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the use. Uses that are illegal, Appropriate X inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to Refuge Manager: s/Barbara Boyle (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, Date: May 4, 2010 we will generally not allow the use. If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge super- If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted visor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is with state fish and wildlife agencies. a new use. Yes X If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must No sign concurrence. When the refuge manager finds the use appropri- If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor ate based on sound professional judgment, the ref- must sign concurrence. uge manager must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s Refuge Supervisor: s/James T. Leach concurrence. Date: November 3, 2010 Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 199 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Use: Firewood Cutting/Timber Harvest This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge’s ✔ natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? (j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✔ uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 200 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Use: Mushroom, Nuts and Berry Picking This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 201 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Use: Research This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 202 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge Use: Trapping of Furbearers This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 203 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District Use: Establishing Food Plots for Resident Wildlife This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 204 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District Use: Establishing and Maintaining Nesting Structures for Migratory Birds This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 205 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District Use: Prescribed Grazing This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 206 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District Use: Temporal Upland Disturbance for Right-of-Way Projects and Full Restoration This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 207 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District Use: Wood Cutting/Timber Harvest This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 208 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District Use: Grassland Seeding and Weed Control This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 209 Appendix I: Appropriate Use

Refuge Name: Tamarac Wetland Management District Use: Haying/Mowing This exhibit is not required for wildlife-depen- or step-down management plan approved after dent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by October 9, 1997. the state, or uses already described in a refuge CCP

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔ (h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Refuge ✔ natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the Refuge’s natural or cultural resources? (j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational ✔ uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D. for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 210 Appendix J: List of Preparers

Appendix J: List of Preparers

Refuge Staff:

 Barbara Boyle, Refuge Manager  Todd Luke, Deputy Refuge Manager  Kelly Blackledge, Park Ranger  Wayne Brininger, Wildlife biologist  Lowell Deede, Wildlife biologist

Regional Office Staff:

 Gary Muehlenhardt, Wildlife Biologist/Refuge Planner, Region 3, USFWS  Gabriel DeAlessio, Biologist-GIS, Region 3, USFWS  Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor, Region 3, USFWS

Tamarac NWR and WMD / Comprehensive Conservation Plan 211